I started this article to try to understand the way the several awards are... awarded.
I'm talking about the world golden ball, player of the year, best forward, best midfielder and so on...
It seems to me that, based on the overall stats, the awards are very often unfair. For example, the winner has an overall rating of 7.50 and 30 games played when the runner-up has an overall rating of 7.70 and 35 games played. It doesn't make any sense and my players are often penalized in this way. Let me be more specific. In the 2013 forward of the year award Wayne Rooney takes it with an overall of 7.58, 36 games played, 19 goals scored and 12 assists. The runner-up, David Villa, played 51 matches with an average of 7.81, scoring 39 goals and 9 assists.
I know managers get to vote for whoever they "think" was the best player. But which criterion is it used?! All we know is based on numbers so the awards should go along with it. Wouldn't it be more fair that way? I'm not suggesting some sort of mathematical equation but maybe a more strict choice wouldn't hurt. Sometimes it seems kind of random.
What's your opinion?