This was Greg's (Stu's brother) response...
I agree that Boks didn't deserve it. They lost both games they played against NZ, one against Australia, and almost lost to Australia at home. If you think the Boks deserved to win the award, that basically means that you think the winner of the rugby world cup should always win it. But why? The cricket world cup was also held last year remember. And many more people play cricket, if that's going to be a consideration...
3 losses is used as justification.
I watched the awards yesterday, and the other nominee's didn't jump out at me. They were:
1) The German Woman's Football Team
Won the women's world cup of football
2) Ferrari
won the F1 constructor's championship largely because McLaren got disqualified
3) AC Milan
presumably won the Champions League (?)
4) Iraq Football Team
presumably won the Asian Cup (equivalent to AFCON)
5) Australian Cricket Team
won the cricket world cup
These teams suggest a predominance of the major team sports and a focus on international teams. I was suprised to see Ferrari there since the season really belonged to McLaren (ja ja... they are cheating bastards... but that means Ferrari had no real competition)
As for the Australian Cricket Team... They had a awful 20-20 World Cup (losing more games than us) and the structure helped them get to the final. They had a poor run in to the World Cup, lost 5 in a row going into the World Cup causing them to lose their number 1 ranking for the first time in years.
Then they dominated the World Cup... granted. The Test Team didn't lose but it was the One-Day Team that was nominated.
I haven't looked at the History of the Laureus awards, but I think there is probably a bias towards World Cup winning teams.
We didn't play Aus or NZ in the World Cup yes, but we still dominated it. Other than the final we scored 4 tries or more in every game. We klapped Argentina in the semi's and beat a scrappy England at their own game in the final. If it hadn't been a World Cup Final where we defended our 9 point lead for a good 20 minutes, I think we would have attacked more and klapped them again (see 36-0... i.e. THIRTY SIX followed by a FAT ZERO).
I do not think it is blatantly obvious that Aus should have taken it instead of us... but I agree that they were probably the nearest contender.
Another consideration:
Anton Rupert is the chief sponsor and founder of the Laureus Awards.
7 comments:
sorry dude, not with you.
I actually think that generally the top soccer team shold win. The Iraq team is probably just a feel good political story.
Well... If the top soccer team `shold' win, then it should just be called World Football Team of the year.
What did AC Milan do that was so impressive?
Other than the World Cup, Aus had a poor One Day year
P.S. Well done on your `Big Blog Break'
indeed. I think the depth of world soccer combined with better incentives and more time with the same players make is likely that the best team at any given time will be a soccer team.
AC won the champions league, and did it in very impressive fashion.
I agree that taking just the one day side weakens the case for the aussies. but I'd say that outside the world cup its probably a wash, and I sorry, but I thought their dominance at the world cup was significantly more impressive than ours, impressive though it was.
and thank you. thank you. bow bow etc.
Laureus website implies that it was the Aus cricket team, not just the one day team, that was nominated. In describing their achievements during the year, they talk about the 5-0 ashes whitewash etc. I didn't see the awards though, so maybe it was obvious there that they were only talking about the one day team.
A major consideration for me is whether the team was quite clearly the best in the world. I feel very comfortable with the assertion that the Aus cricket team was the best during 2007, less comfortable about the Boks. They were very impressive, but I just can't help feeling that All blacks were still the better team. Sure, they screwed up a key match in the World Cup, and that counts against them, but overall I'd bet that All Blacks 2007 would beat Boks 2007 around seven times out of ten. And they did lose fewer matches during the year, and had a 2-0 heah to head record against the Boks. So I'm not completely comfortable that the Boks were even the best rugby team in 2007, and that's a bit of a problem for me, when we're talking about an award for best sports team.
Same reasoning (i.e. about being obviously the best team) makes me sceptical about AC Milan, if they didn't dominate their domestic league (admittedly, I'm not sure if they did or not - they started with a big points deficit).
Agree Ferrari are non-starters, and Iraq football team. Don't know anything about German womens soccer team.
What about someone like the New England Patriots in American Football. Did they lose a game in 2007? It seems quite clear that they were the best team.
trevor scares me. so I'll hide behind greg and agree with him, and then poke my head out a little.
Though I agree that there was not another team that deserved the rugby world cup mare than SA all things considered, I don't think we were all that impressive. there were several crucial moments where things could have gone different. twice against decidedly second rate teams. The all blacks were unlucky, we were lucky. I think they're a better side.
The aussies are just so very clearly a mile ahead of all of us though.
I will bow and accept since Greg did me the honour of doubling my number of commenters
Post a Comment