^^ do they ever some major names were missing altogether lol
(19-12-2016 19:59 )Regenerated Wrote: [ -> ]They were massive underdogs - the Netherlands were dominant and were defending champions. GB had never won that ever.
I think you're inventing facts to suit yourself. They were 9/1 which is hardly massive underdogs. You can't compare that to Leicester City winning at 5000/1. Oh and by the way, Leicester City had never won their title ever, so your 'never won that' argument doesn't work either.
At the same time we are all likely not going to be around when it does happen again though - but let's "Where was I when Leicester city won the title" stories then!!
(19-12-2016 20:45 )HannahsPet Wrote: [ -> ]Not denying they did good out there just the fact it wasnt shock they could win
You're right, it wasn't a shock that they could win. In fact at 9/1 they were the joint 3rd favourites for the tournament. Only the Netherlands (at 6/5) and Australia (at 5/1) were quoted at lower odds. The biggest outsiders in the 12 team competition were Spain and India (at 50/1).
(19-12-2016 23:15 )William H Bonney Wrote: [ -> ] (19-12-2016 19:59 )Regenerated Wrote: [ -> ]They were massive underdogs - the Netherlands were dominant and were defending champions. GB had never won that ever.
I think you're inventing facts to suit yourself. They were 9/1 which is hardly massive underdogs. You can't compare that to Leicester City winning at 5000/1. Oh and by the way, Leicester City had never won their title ever, so your 'never won that' argument doesn't work either.
No Billy, I don't invent facts to suit myself. I have made a valid argument based on my opinion. I'm allowed to have the opinion that Leicester didn't deserve team of the year. I have made a fair, non-aggressive argument based upon my choice.
I notice that you reappear a lot on here when it's to shoot down my views. A policy which you also adapted in snookered's thread about a World Football League. Even though you thought it was as just a nonsensical idea as I did, you still found the time to have a swipe at me.
Whatever floats your boat - I've respected you in the past for your knowledge of sports statistics. I've also answered both your statements above in the two previous posts.
I've nothing more to say to you. Bet you're glad at that bit though aren't you..?
Leicester City's triumph last season was the greatest miracle in sports history. They would have won the Team Of The Year award in ANY year.
Yes I am a Leicester supporter, but does that make any difference? Supporters of other clubs were quick to give us credit last season for what we achieved and were very generous with their praise. The sporting miracle was widely recognised and applauded.
I could give many reasons why it was such a miracle, but rather than write a long post I'll concentrate on one thing - the economics. Until Leicester no team with a wage bill outside the top 5 had won the Premier League and since 1998 no team outside the biggest 3 wage bills had won. Leicester's wage bill was in the bottom 5. Plus no fewer than 7 clubs in the league had one or more players who cost more than Leicester's entire team. Some Premier League players cost more than double Leicester's entire team.
The economics alone should have made it impossible, which is why Leicester were actually one of the favourites to be relegated last season.
To anyone who doesn't recognise a sporting miracle when you see one - why are you even watching sport in the first place?
Even I remember the days when people used to just accept the winner's of an award, applaud them, and move on...!
Why do people now feel the need to pull apart every stat or minutia about a winner, rather than just accept their victory?
If you don't have an interest in a certain sport then you won't vote for the individual or team in that sport and you won't respect their achievement, for example i have no interest in horse racing so i wouldn't vote for Nick Skelton.
There are people who have no interest in football so they probably didn't even care when Leicester won the prem title.
In the babeshow babe of the year competition we only vote for the girls we like, we don't vote for the girls we don't find attractive even if they are good performers
(20-12-2016 03:34 )dominar rygel xvi Wrote: [ -> ]Until Leicester no team with a wage bill outside the top 5 had won the Premier League and since 1998 no team outside the biggest 3 wage bills had won. Leicester's wage bill was in the bottom 5. Plus no fewer than 7 clubs in the league had one or more players who cost more than Leicester's entire team.
When Leicester played Man City in February the Man City team had as many as 8 players who cost more than Leicester's entire team, including 3 players who each cost more than double Leicester's entire team. It does give you a sense of the scale of Leicester's achievement.
(21-12-2016 03:25 )Joey 27 Wrote: [ -> ]If you don't have an interest in a certain sport then you won't vote for the individual or team in that sport and you won't respect their achievement, for example i have no interest in horse racing so i wouldn't vote for Nick Skelton.
There are people who have no interest in football so they probably didn't even care when Leicester won the prem title.
In the babeshow babe of the year competition we only vote for the girls we like, we don't vote for the girls we don't find attractive even if they are good performers
That's a fair and valid assessment mate