Comments on: Proud England win Team of the Year award

By: Stuart Peel

Stuart Peel — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:48:55 +0000

I must confess to having cringed slightly when the rugby team won that, and some of them did look rather embarrassed.
I know it’s not a mainstream sport, but the cyclists won 7 Golds at the World Championships which was a hell of an achievement. Vicky Pendleton won 3 of them, a fairly phenomenal individual effort and she wasn’t even nominated. While cycling is largely an individual sport, the team GB cycling deserved some recognition for their efforts.

Of the 3 teams which were nominated, one of them were useless for most of the year although showed great spirit to get to the World Cup final, another failed to qualify for the European Championships (not even the World Cup)being the Scotland football team, and the other won 7 World Championship Golds. Should have been a non-decision.
I thought it just added fuel to the fire of those who believe the Sports Personality of the Year event is the exclusive preserve of mainstream sports.

By: Rob Douglas

Rob Douglas — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:58:42 +0000

Lets hope that team spirit shines on and the team of the year replicates some of it in forthcoming tests.

Strength in adversity and collective will are admirable qualities, but I still think this reward is for actual achievement, and that means winners.

2 huge games don’t make a great team, and actually the consistency, togetherness and fight tested over a long season or campaign are just as pivotal in the definition of a team.

No points for second place!

By: Rob Watson

Rob Watson — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:08:08 +0000

I agree that we all too often celebrate the plucky losers in this country, but I agree with James that it’s hard to match the team spirit that we showed. It was after all the World Cup and we were at one point rated 66-1 outsiders to even make the final, but went on to beat Australia and then the hosts in front of a capacity crowd.

Compared with that then Leicester and St Helens winning their respective leagues again was not that great an achievement was it? Wasps winning the Heineken cup there is maybe a case for, especially bearing in mind what James has said about the definition of a team – beating Leicester in the final was a huge performance and they did win a trophy.

Let’s face it though – 2003 we were a no brainer for team of the year, but I’m sure one thing we’d all agree on is that this year’s award had more than a slight air of “best of a bad lot” about it.

By: James

James — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:57:33 +0000

For me, this award isn’t necessarily about who won the most silverware, it’s about which was the best ‘team’, and the fact that by the time we got to final, England had given life to that cliche, ‘greater than the sum of its parts’. The team was stronger than the group of individuals from which it was made.

By: Rob Douglas

Rob Douglas — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:30:25 +0000

I actually agree with Steffy on this one, can't stand this country's insistence on rewarding failure - at least Calzaghe got the recognition he deserves ahead of Hamilton.

Great effort from our boys in France, and it's true there's not much else out there, especially on national level, but heroic losers don't really do it for me. Shame Leicester didn't do the treble to make them obvious contenders but lets not forget our last 6 nations - team of the YEAR?!

By: Steffy

Steffy — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:21:20 +0000

Well, just from rugby there would Leicester Tigers, St. Helens, Leeds Rhinos, London Wasps, The Lions – they all won something.

By: Rob Watson

Rob Watson — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:09:41 +0000

Such as???……………..

By: Steffy

Steffy — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:45:25 +0000

A team which won something would be a start.

By: James

James — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:27:57 +0000

Which team do you think should have won?

By: Steffy

Steffy — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:45:39 +0000

The england union team didn’t win anything so how can they get team of the year?