I agree regarding Mansell's lack of charisma, but Romford Slim has a good personality. He's always entertaining when he's interviewed.

Steve "Interesting" Davis does hold a special distinction in the annals of SPOTY. Apart from Jim Laker in 1956 (when he took 19 wickets in a match), he is the only non-Olympic competitor to win in the year of an Olympics. That's some achievement.

It depends where your marker of "good personality" starts from.

If its a wooden post then you may have a point.

I don't see why Leeds would win it. Every single sport has to have a winner at the end of the season/tournament. We haven't done anything particularly remarkable.

Saint Helens again for me. They've been in the last 4 GFs dontcha know!

i was thinking the same, but maybe the treble champions is the point people are making, rather than merely super league champions 2009.

The award has the word "personality" in it.

Thats the forehead out of the running

I think that is indeed the point! Is this achievement better than Saints 2006 achievement of the treble of CC, Hub-cap and SL title? The three previous seasons Saints record was average at best with the hub-cap in 2005 but not reaching the final and nothing in 2003 & 2004! We have now won three SL titles in a row as well as one of the two WCC we have appeared in and have the double in the bag in 2009. Other than the CC we have dominated SL for the last three years and are arguably the (because of the three straight SL titles) the most successful team in SL history.

If we had beaten Manly in March and now have a treble would that make a difference to people's opinion? Is the CC the problem as to why at least people don't seem to think we at least deserve to be talked about as possible (because I don't think we will get the award) winners?

Sorry, he forgot to add "without cheating".

We have a little way off being "better than Saints" in Super League history books

In terms of total competition points I think we do quite well. The gap is something like 8 points over the 12 years

Do you not understand the meaning of the word 'arguably'?

When you have looked it up in the dictionary and found the meaning of said word why don't you give it a go then?

I will even start the post for you "St Helens are the most successful club in SL history and not Leeds because...."

Yes, sorry Big Rob, maybe should have included the words 'without cheating' in there but lets see what his argument is first!

Well, we are waiting?

The thing is its sports personality of the YEAR. Our past stuff will mean nothing I'm afraid

I was laughing at your purely conceptual as opposed as statistical based analysis of success. Yes, arguably indeed. Good luck 'arguing' it.

Sorry, you are the one dissenting and therefore wishing, I assume, to highlight the fact you do disagree to my statement, which I quite clearly stated was 'arguable'? Surely therefore it is implicit in my statement that I agree that under various angles of scrutiny it is not likely to stand-up as a definitive statement!

The thing is I am not sure I agree with the statement that we are, because of statistical reasoning and other reasoned arguments. However, you are the one being smug and clearly think we are not, otherwise you would not have responded as you did. So, it is not up to me to argue as, as any good debater will know, the it is up to the opposition to disprove the propositions statement and not the other way round!

# of times SL champions
St Helens - 3
Bradford Bulls - 3
Wigan - 1

Leeds - 4

I excluded the years where Saints and Bradford cheated.

I think that is the most reasoned argument I agree. Both Wigan and Saints did 'trebles' in the years they won and we only did a double and arguably Wigan should have won it more than once during their dominating years!

Do you repeat that to the honours board at the RFL... Has the text changed yet. Good luck.

The most succesful team of the SL era is St Helens. Fact.

The most succesful team in rugby league history is Wigan. Fact

Both Lancastrian teams.

Lancashire sets the bar.

Right, to bring this back on thread.

As far as I can see, Leeds have a good chance of winning if the quality of the opposition is concerned.

I don't think they will however. The BBC would rather have a clapathon around the sub-standard English cricket team then risk chosing a tea more worthy and consistent in its application of winning practices.

This is not knocking cricket as I play and follow the sport. The fact remains however that England are a [iterrible[/i one day outfit and were bloody lucky to defeat Australia. Ask yourselves what their record was before that summer as well...

I smell a 'Paul Collingwood MBE' moment when the winner is announced.

Quite rightly, as you took this topic off-thread in the first place!

The one thing I will say is that in respect of any cricket team winning the title this year, if it is the men's team then that is without any argument WRONG and UNJUST. Arguing between sports is always going to be difficult but when the English Women's Cricket team have achieved and won everything, including 'the Ashes' then they have to be the only cricket team that can win.

They've just lost a T20 series in the West Indies, does that rule them out of contention?



There's only one plausible winner and that's Brawn GP. To go from having no team at all to winning both the drivers and constructors titles is an enormous achievement.

Is that strictly accurate? Surely the team rose from the ashes of the Honda team that pulled out at the end of last year?
Notwithstanding that, to do what Brawn did is still outstanding, proving that talent, engineering & design excellence can still beat the money bags at Ferrari, BMW, Toyota, Renault and Mercedes.
More power to them, Red Bull & Toro Rosso.

It did to an extent, but there was still a sizeable gap between Honda withdrawing and Brawn having the funding, staff etc in place for the start of the season.

It wasn't a case of Brawn just simply buying out Honda, staff and all.