Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“No I am not penalising anyone, all I am looking at is how good of a year has someone has had on an individual level, as that is what this main award looks at, and for example, although Leicester won the Premier League, that was exceptional, Vardy's part was not exceptional (by that I mean scoring 40 plus goals, now that would have exceptional, but he just scored a decent amount of goals for a title winning team).
This award is about doing that bit more than everyone else in that persons respective sport, so if again for example, three or four cyclists went that bit further, and achieved that bit more than any other cyclists, and that in the wider perspective, outweighs what other people in other sports have achieved, then just because there are four exceptional cyclists, shouldn't mean that one or two of them should not be on the final shortlist.
The fact that Froome won the Tour de France, is a far bigger achievement than what Bale contributed towards Real Madrid and Wales this year (as great as both sides success' were), so he should have been on the shortlist ahead of Bale.
If the final shortlist is predominantly from one sport (or variations thereof), then I don't see anything at all wrong with that, it would just show how strong a year that sport has had, and how good the individuals have been.
Also I note that you are yet to answer my question about Cox, when you say the list could have been dominated by cyclists, were you including Cox as a cyclist, an athlete, or both?”
I said we would have 5 cyclists, thus meaning there are 4 now so surely you can work out that i was including her as a cyclist because it is her cycling, as well as her athletics, that has got her a nomination.
And you did use the words "Cop out to pick anybody who wasnt in Rio" So YES you would penalise people for being in a sport that isnt in the Olympics. Andy Murray is going to walk this, rightly so, and that is predominantly for what he did outside of the Olympics.