I simply could not believe some of the furore over Andy Murray’s much-deserved winning of the BBC’s Sports Personality of the Year award.
It would not matter if our country’s best tennis player for three generations came up with a cure for cancer, a recipe for world peace and the solution to the age-old mystery of turning base metal into gold – some people would still hate him.
There are many reasons behind that, but all of them would appear flawed.
He has been lambasted, as a proud Scot, for saying he would happily cheer the opposition every time England play a football international.
Nothing wrong with that in my book.
I personally Tweet congratulations to every single football team that beats the rascals from down the road on a Saturday afternoon or a Tuesday or Wednesday evening.
Others say he didn’t deserve to win because he hasn’t done anything exceptional.
In 1998 Greg Rusedski won the same award with Tim Henman in second spot.
Now there are a pair of tennis players you could accuse of having won nothing worth winning.
But not Murray, a US Open winner and Wimbledon champion in the last 14 or so months.
Others suggest there were more deserving winners.
I find that difficult to quantify when someone brings the Wimbledon title home for the first time in a very long time ... so long in fact my own mother was not even alive when Fred Perry claimed his last title.
The nub of the problem, I believe is that the award has always been badly named.
It asks for a “personality”, and people query if the quietly spoken and publicity-avoiding Scot has one.
But two of my favourite sportsmen of all time – Nigel Mansell (twice) and Sir Nick Faldo – are previous winners and neither appears to be the life and soul of the party when interviewed on television.
Murray gave all British sport fans something they have craved for generations.
He received half the votes and if you don’t think he should have won you should have voted for someone else.