Quote ="Sal Paradise"My point is does Peacock's contribution look more because of the quality around him or because of his own quality. Are his performances have more quality than Wellens? Both are consummate professionals and both add massively to their team. Peacock should not be lauded because he lacks support from his team mates whereas Wellens doesn't.
This year has seen a definite drop off in his effectiveness - not surprising given his age etc. So is he getting the award out of respect for his past performances if so that is OK but it is not really what the award is about?'"
This is a good question and I guess a deeper one around the whole award - do you give the MoS to specifically the best player only, or do you give it to the player that has the greatest impact on those around him, even though his specific performances have been better in past years?
As a purist, I would say 'best overall player' - I guess most of the time this tends to be a player in the best / one of the best teams as the two tend to dove-tail. This being the case though, you can argue the other way and say the 'best overall player' shouldn't get the award as usually the rest of the team have played well too and helped him perform as such.
In football they tend solely to go for 'player with the biggest individual impact on the league' rather than the 'player who did really well and dragged his team-mates along as they were hopeless without him'.
This is why most of the time the football player of the year plays in the team that either dominates or does a lot better than predicted in that specific season.
I agree with Sal that JP was better last year. The thing was last year though, there were other stand-out players. This year there hasn't really been a sole dominating player so overall I can't really see anyone but JP getting it, even though he was slightly less good this time.
It is a philosophical question, I guess!
