The v2 Hall of Fame

First topic message reminder :

Evening all.

With the continued growth of 606v2 and the v2 Journal, we have decided to start an official v2 Hall of Fame.

What does this mean, you might be asking.

Well, basically, we are going to honour the great sports persons in history by inducting them into the v2 record books. As time goes on, we will add more and more inductees, so that eventually it becomes a who's who of great sports stars.

We will endeavour to let the recipients know of their awards and try to get an official response (where possible).

Some sections have already started their own HoF but for the official v2 one, we wanted it to incorporate every sport.

So how is it going to work?

Well this thread is designed to act as a nomination thread, where for the next week (closing Sunday), we will take peoples nominations as to who they would like to see inducted. If you are going to nominate someone (or second a nomination) then please give us a reason why they should be considered. After this process has finished, we will announce a shortlist of the people we are considering, at which point, once again you will all be able to show your support and backing of the shortlisted candidates.

After this second round of debating, the admin and mod teams will decide who will be the first inductees.

In this first lot of inductees, we are looking to initiate 6 people. We will then add 6 more every 6 months in a similar process.

So get nominating - any sportsman, dead or alive. Just give us a name and a reason why they should be considered.

Chantal Laboureur then.

OK.

Darts? I thought the op said sports?
Any 6 from:
Puskas, Pele.
Muhamed Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard
Bruce Lee,
Fangio, Barry Sheene
Bjorn Borg,
Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods
Steve Redgrave
Michael Jordan
Daley Thompson, Carl Lewis
all incredible competitors.
Never - Maradonna, Schumacher

As it's six inductees you're after at first, I'll work under the assumption that we can put forward half a dozen nominations - so correct me if I'm wrong. Not an easy task by any means, but I'll have a go.

First off, Sir Donald Bradman (Cricket). I'd say that Bradman is, perhaps, the only name who simply has to be amongst the original six regardless of how you're measuring greatness or whatever specific criteria you are using. The passing of time has done absolutely nothing to diminish his standing; in fact, I'd say that the Don's achievements are looking better and better with each year that passes.

In terms of sports which are measured primarily in statistics, Bradman is the most dominant sportsman that I know of. Mike Atherton was a fine opening batsman in test cricket, for instance. A genuinely proven player who was a key figure in the England side for over a decade, with a test batting average of 37.69. But let's then consider that Bradman's 99.94 average, done over a 52-test career spanning twenty years, remains 38.97 runs higher than the next best in history (to my shame, I can't quite remember off the top of my head whether that's Graeme Pollock or George Headley!), and you begin to appreciate what a giant Bradman is in his own field. To put things in to further perspective, you could combine the test averages of Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara, the two met commonly cited as the stand out batsman of the past quarter of a century, and they would still only come to 108.33, only a little over eight runs higher than Bradman's mind-boggling figure. Lara and Tendulkar boast supreme averages of 52.89 and 55.44 respectively - Bradman, incredibly, was deemed to have had a 'poor' series in the notorious 'bodyline' Ashes against England, and yet he actually recorded a 56 or 57 average in that series!

In most sports, a debate has always raged about just who was the greatest to grace it. In cricket, there is no such problem. Bradman is so far ahead of his rivals, be they his contemporaries or men who emerged decades before or after him, that comparisons are pointless.

Moreover, you could argue that the art of batting was more difficult in the Don's day than it currently is. Bradman played when pitches were uncovered, when there was no limit on bouncers to be bowled, when bats were smaller and so on. In short, I simply can't think of any other sportsman who is as far ahead of his greatest rivals as Bradman is.

Next up, Pele (football). I'd say a key aspect here is that football is perhaps the most competitive sport of the lot, given that it's also the most popular and most played. Even allowing for that, Pele's achievements warrant special consideration. From a technical point of view, Pele is at least the equal of anyone else I've seen, be it in person, on video etc. He could dribble, had two good feet, was great in the air, much quicker than people seem to think and had superb balance. He's certainly the only player who can make any kind of claim to being the best player in two separate world cups, first as a mere boy in 1958 and then again in that classic Brazilian side of 1970; and this was, in footballing terms, a whole generation after Pele had emerged on the international stage.

There's an idea around that Pele didn't have that same virtuosity to his play which Maradona had (or Messi currently has), and that his greatness is based around sheer consistency and is sometimes overhyped due to his ambassador status within the game, but that's not really true. Upon the advice of a mate a couple of years back, I took a look at a friendly (it's available online, still) between Brazil and England, in 1964, I think. Pele, almost single-handedly, destroyed England to the extent that the game prompted England changing to the 4-4-2 formation which won the world cup two years later. An all-round phenomenal player.

Muhammad Ali (boxing), next. One of the most original and creative performers ever seen in the ring, but Ali is an example of someone who reached 'great status', in part, to things they did outside of their sport as well as in it. A politician of sorts, a popular culture icon, an entertainer and a symbol of black pride all rolled in to one, you could argue that Ali is the most famous and idolised sportsman of all time, and certainly the affection he garners from fans the world over is the closest thing to love that any sportsman has ever known.

That's not to ignore his exploits within his sport, which, while probably not enough to make him a top six man alone, were still outstanding. In his 'first incarnation' as Cassius Clay, he rewrote the Heavyweight text books with his quicksilver attacks, fleeting footwork and cat-like reflexes. Remember, boxing had been in trouble before Ali emerged, in light of the Kefauver investigation which had shown the sport to be riddled with corruption, prompting many television networks to turn their back on it. Ali took the sport by the scruff of the neck and revitalised it. Returning after a three-year exile due to refusing to be inducted in to the US Army on the grounds of not believing in the Vietnam war, Ali found himself in the middle of the only true 'golden era' of Heavyweight boxing, pitted against outstanding fighters such as Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Ken Norton etc - and he beat them all.

With his outrageous mix of bombast, ridiculous (but always entertaining) poetry and pure wit, Ali was arguably the most instantly recognisable face on the planet throughout his career - how long will it be before we see another sportsman reach such status, if we ever do at all? In 1999, the BBC conducted a poll to find who the people of Britain considered the 'Sports Personality of the Century' for 1900 to 1999, drawing up a list which included the aforementioned Bradman and Pele, as well as other incredible athletes and personalities such as Steffi Graf, Jack Nicklaus, Jessie Owens etc. Ali secured more votes than all of the other candidates combined, which speaks volumes, but perhaps still doesn't do justice to the huge impact he had, and continues to have to this day.

Roger Federer (tennis). Not easy to pick just one name from men's tennis. I believe that Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras and Rafael Nadal all have decent claims to being the greatest of the lot in that field. But for me, Federer stands just that little bit above the rest.

Certainly, I'd consider Federer to be the greatest and most natural talent I've seen play the game with my own eyes. Furthermore, tennis is one of the truly international sports, as opposed to a sport such as cricket or rugby, which are often centralised heavily in certain quarters of the globe, but followed and / or played only on a limited basis elsewhere. Federer's demolition of Lleyton Hewitt in the 2004 US Open final remains the most stunning display of aggressive, attacking tennis I've ever seen. His displays in the 2005 Wimbledon final and 2007 Australian Open semi-final, both against Andy Roddick, wouldn't be far behind.

It's his record-breaking which has left me most impressed with Federer, though. Before Federer began to win them, the Grand Slam (or 'Majors' record for the pedants here!) stood at fourteen, set by the great Pete Sampras - Federer currently has sixteen, and may well add to that before retiring. The most consecutive wins in finals in the open era (1968 onwards) was jointly held by John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg, with twelve - Federer actually doubled that record, with twenty-four. The longest consecutive spell as the worlds number one player had been 160 weeks, by the great Jimmy Connors - Federer extended that record to an incredible 237 consecutive weeks. While seven players have completed the 'career slam' of winning all four majors at some point, only three have achieved the feat on three different surfaces (hard court, grass court, clay court) - and Federer is one of them. And all of that is only scratching the surface.

I'd also offer up Stephen Hendry (snooker), for sheer dominance. Granted, snooker hasn't been (until recently) the most international of sports, but Henry's domination of it has been fairly unique and matched only by a few. Let's get the sheer statistics out of the way, and the incredible number of records Henry holds; youngest ever world champion (21), youngest ever world number one (21), most century breaks (somewhere around the 770 mark, I believe), most 147 maximum breaks (11, jointly held), most world titles (7), most consecutive world titles (5), most world ranking events (36), most seasons as world number one (9), most Masters titles (6), most prize money (somewhere around the £9 million mark, if my memory serves me correctly), and I'm sure there will be a few more I've forgotten.

But another key aspect to consider is Hendry's impact on the way snooker is played. Hendry's incredibly aggressive and attacking play was a departure from the 'percentage game' played by Steve Davis and Ray Reardon in the eighties and the seventies before that, and many prominent snooker figures cite the huge influece Henry has had in this regard. I see the likes of Ronnie O'Sullivan, Alex Higgins etc described as the only snooker players worthy of 'genius' status. Which begs the question; if O'Sullivan is a genius, what does that make Hendry?

Finally, I'd nominate Andrew Johns (rugby league). Again, much of this is going on what I've seen with my own two eyes, but for me, Johns is certainly the best player I've ever seen in the 13 man code of rugby. Of course, his goal kicking exploits propelled him in to the record books (at the time of his retirement in 2007, he was the leading point scorer in the history of Australian rugby league), however his handling was his greatest strength; he was, for many years, the hearbeat of that Newcastle Knights team. His short passes, quick thinking and incredible vision made him the best proverbial play maker I've seen in rugby league.

What's slightly unusual about Johns is that, even in his own era, there were serious suggestions that he was the greatest of the lot (incredibly, not even Bradman has universal recognition in his own time, with perfectly sane men somehow deducing that Victor Trumper was the better player). However, Johns' two golden boots as the best player on the planet in 1999 and 2001 (the first man to win it twice), point scoring records and ability to win matches at the death marked him out just that little bit higher than the greats who went before, including Peter Sterling, Wally Lewis etc.

I'll make those my six choices. Tried to keep it to just one candidate per sport, which may explain some of my choices looking a little odd. Would have loved to offer someone from athletics / track & field, but there are literally too many to choose from, each with rock-solid claims (Bubka, Bekele, Nuurmi, Bolt, Joyner-Kersee, Devers, Lewis, Thompson, Moses, Johnson, Kluft, Gebreselassie, El Gerrouj, Edwards, Zalezny) and God only knows how many others! Well aware of the likes of Michael Jordan, Lance Armstrong, Lester Piggott etc, but simply don't know enough about their respective fields to make a proper judgement.

My initial 6 nominations would be:

Bradman - Echoing chris's words really. Statistically the greatest sportsman ever.

Maradona - Football is widely recognised as the most played sport on earth and IMO Maradona was the best there has been. Won the world cup with a team that would have struggled to reach the knockout phase without him and had a similar impact at Napoli

Ali - Not the best boxer ever but the greatest personality of all sportsman.

Carl Lewis - 4 golds at Los Angeles, world records and even a long jump gold 12 years later in Atlanta.

Tiger Woods - Nicklaus may have been better but Woods transformed golf in the late 90's and was almost unbeatable in a sport where anyone who enters has a chance.

Michael Jordan - I'm no Basketball fan but he was apparently the best and is a massive personality.

Sachin Tendulkar
Don Bradman
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralitharan

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Sachin Tendulkar
Don Bradman
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralitharan

No other sportsmen/women?

My first 6 Inductees.

Rod Laver - Defined the game of tennis and really and truly was the first great player of 2 era's. Any HOF including a tennis player must begin with this man.

Pele - The first true superstar of the game. Was part of the greatest team the world had seen at the 1970 World Cup. A true Icon.

Sir Steve Redgrave - A sporting legend. 5 consecutive Gold Medals on 4 different continents over 3 decades. Simply unmatchable.

Shane Warne - For me he re-invented Cricket and took the game to new levels. Whether people want to remember him for some of his bad publicity off the pitch, but for me he took the game to a new audience and over 700 Test Wickets and makes you wonder had he not had the major shoulder and DRS was available just how many wickets he would've ended up with.

Jack Nicklaus - The greatest golfer there will ever be. 18 Majors winning his last at 1986 Masters. Had 19 runner up finishes. Count that. 37 Majors in the top 2. Stunning. Had a much more difficult field to overcome than Woods.

Muhammad Ali - Need I say anymore?

Celebrity Inductee

David Walliams - Swam the English Channel. More people have died trying than people actually completing the feat. Has swam the Thames and also swam the Strait of Gilbraltar. For me as a sporting achievement that should be recognised and he should have a spot in the HOF.

That Thames swim was mighty impressive. At least the channel swim is over in a few hours. Walliams though had to get up on 8 (I think) consecutive mornings and swim approx 20 miles. Magnificent mental strength.

Indeed. The fact he was made ill by unpleasant crap in the river makes it the remarkable.

legend i dont think you know much about golf modern or past if you think that nicklaus is way ahead of woods- woods took the game to another level- nicklaus didnt.

just because nicklaus was closer in quality to his peers doesnt mean that woods peers was weaker. The more logical explanation(considering that golf constantly grows in popularity) is that tiger just got to a much better level during his peak.

he has won so far 16 wgc's and 14 majors. the guy was winning so much in his peak it was unbelivable.

What woods did to golf- was something no other sportsman has ever come close to in any sport- the only person i think comes close would be phil taylor or phelps i suppose.

Nicklaus also well up there as a top 6 for me, but alongside a federer or something, woods for me in his peak is out there on his own. If people doubt this- there dont understand golf,tigers acheivement or how competitive the game is..

woods carrer at the top was short lived- however he is still good enouygh to win events- and he will win more.

By the way i never wont woods to win i am not even a fan, he is the player i love to hate(in a patomine way)- i allways cheer against him- However i cant think of any other sportsman on planet earth that acheived what he did, others have come close like taylor or phelps. But woods did it in a massively high participation sport.

messi for me is easily the best footballer ever to grace the game- people have to understand that in sports like football or golf(massive participation)- it is harder to shine out the longer the sports go on for due to participation, evolotions to training, management and the game it self., therefore messi and ronaldo p!ss over pele and maradona for my money!

but i wouldnt even put messi alongside woods- because ronaldo is almost as good. No one got to being that close a number 2 in woods reign. Nicklaus had a few very close no.2's in his time like player,watson etc

I am sorry mystiro but I think you talk a lot of tosh.

Do you think that a Woods could outperform Nicklaus? Have you ever seen some of Jack's wins?? I don't think you actually watch sports full stop.

Woods better than Federer??

Again a load of old crap from someone that hasn't watched these 2 careers closely.

Messi will never eclipse Roberto Carlos or Zidane!!!

Messi will never eclipse Roberto Carlos or Zidane!!!

----------------------------------

Carlos???????????????

Stella wrote:Messi will never eclipse Roberto Carlos or Zidane!!!

----------------------------------

Carlos???????????????

A guy that won countless La Liga's and Champions League titles and 2 World Cups. Are seriously saying that Messi has done more than him?

legendkillarV2 wrote:I am sorry mystiro but I think you talk a lot of tosh.

Do you think that a Woods could outperform Nicklaus? Have you ever seen some of Jack's wins?? I don't think you actually watch sports full stop.

Woods better than Federer??

Again a load of old crap from someone that hasn't watched these 2 careers closely.

Messi will never eclipse Roberto Carlos or Zidane!!!

Dont watch sports lol. You dont have a scooby. what woods did in his 10 years at the top has eclipsed any other sportsman on planet earth. Anyone understating what he did in the modern era either doesnt know anything about golf or sport in general

messi wont eclipse roberto carlos- what you been taking dude, he allready has by a stretch..

legend its not about what you have done at international level- blimey! do you really 'only' rate footballers on there respective teams performance

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Stella wrote:Messi will never eclipse Roberto Carlos or Zidane!!!

----------------------------------

Carlos???????????????

A guy that won countless La Liga's and Champions League titles and 2 World Cups. Are seriously saying that Messi has done more than him?

He will do. Anyway it's not all about team acheivement. Did Carlos ever win the world player of the year. I'm sorry but carlos was a good defender who took a ok free-kick and to compare him to Messi is well, weird.

basically its as simple as this.

Messi has a great shot at getting into most hall of fames,

Carlos is miles away, zidane on the other hand- ermm i rated him highly, but carlos- drop me out dude

Hah!

Mate you need to actually sport.

Woods done more in 10 years than Nicklaus? Or anyone? I take it your wet dream is Woods and Messi in a South Park sketch!!

Federer has done more than Woods. Pele done more than Woods. Ali done more than Woods.

Messi surpassed Carlos?? Give me a break. Couldn't score past a depleated Chelsea side!

Roy Keane described Carlos as the best player he had seen. I won't argue with him.

George Weah won World Player of The Year. And?

Carlos had a career that most would dream of.

Simples Messi a great player, but not the greatest.

Chris that is a superb post

There is indeed a very compelling case to be made for Don Bradman to being the greatest sportsman of all time. I confess to not knowing enough about Rugby League or Snooker to consider Hendry or Johns personally (though the names are, of course, familiar). The other four IMVHO are hard to argue against (and I'm not only saying that because I nominated them as well )

Roy Keane described Carlos as the best player he had seen. I won't argue with him.

---------------------------------

Got any proof?

Carlos was a very good player but Messi is a great player and is still pretty young.

Messi has won world player of the year three times and has won three CL's.

Bradman's stats are super scary.

Hendry is a good shout. I used to get annoyed because he used to beat old Jimmy. When you look back at what he achieved, your like wow.

why you getting personal dude- just relax!

you obviously dont get the importance of what woods acheived- not sure why. i am not taking back what i said and i dont even like him, that is how much i rate his time at the top, the ranking points he acheived, the results he acheived, the wins he acheived in a sport that isnt a straight forward knock out(fields of 100 plus) was unmatched by anyone in my opinion!

However your judgement on carlos based on what roy keane said is also astonishing!

mystiroakey wrote:messi for me is easily the best footballer ever to grace the game- people have to understand that in sports like football or golf(massive participation)- it is harder to shine out the longer the sports go on for due to participation, evolotions to training, management and the game it self., therefore messi and ronaldo p!ss over pele and maradona for my money!

Can't speak on golf matters, but I do have to call you on this one, Oakey, because you're talking absolute nonsense.

Messi a great player of course, and I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility of him surpassing Pele, Maradona, Puskas, Di Stefano and the like in the coming years. But outlandish claims such as him 'pi$$ing all over' the aforementioned is a load of cobblers.

I have serious doubts you've watched much of Pele on the evidence of such a comment. He had everything Messi had, and perhaps more if we note the fact that Messi is, essentially, a one-footed player, albeit an incredible foot. When you get the chance, take a look at Pele's performances as a seventeen year old in the '58 world cup, or in '62 before injury struck. The sheer virtuosity in his play was incredible. Even in 1970, with his legendary pace now dimmed somewhat, Pele was the best player (even allowing for the brilliance of Jairzinho) in that classic side.

Which brings me on to my next point. How on earth can Messi be called the greatest footballer of all time when his performances on the biggest world-wide stage have, thus far, been so relatively average?

As I stated before, Pele is the only player in history with a realistic claim to have been the outstanding player in two world cup tournaments (1958 and 1970). That they were so far apart says much about his dominance of his era and his longevity. Likewise, Maradona scaled outrageous heights in the '86 tournament, dragging an otherwise sound but hardly outstanding Argentina side kicking and screaming in to that final. Matthaus gave him a bit of a working over during that final match, but even then it was Maradona's sublime vision and passing ability which created the winning goal. In every match prior to that (and let's not forget that Argentina mixed it with Uruguay, Italy and England in that tournament), no defence had been able to contain him. While his star had dimmed by 1990, his performances in that tournament were still just about better than anything Messi has mustered so far in his international career.

Come on mate, admit it - you were, no doubt, calling Ronaldinho 'the greatest of all time' a few years back, weren't you? How about Zidane and Figo just before that?

Won't take you up on golf, as I don't care for it or know much about it, but when it comes to football you're talking absolute cobblers, mate. Sorry.

Stella wrote:Roy Keane described Carlos as the best player he had seen. I won't argue with him.

---------------------------------

Got any proof?

Carlos was a very good player but Messi is a great player and is still pretty young.

Messi has won world player of the year three times and has won three CL's.

In his Autobiography.

I am sure you have enough change and charity shop to buy a copy.

chris your not understadning the case in point.

my point is in reagrds to performance levels and evolotion, and about a level of quality.

messi is the best player today in a sport that is going forwards not backwards, therefore the level he has got to is more than likely to be the best level any player has got to ever.. That was my argument, not that he is any more significant than other top players, just the level that he has acheieved. I personally wouldnt have him in a top 6 because its not that significant in a hall of fame status. Would pele have been better than messi today if there were the same age- not sure- impossible to tell. However i fully believe that messis today would run rings around pele of yesteryear

Is that simple enough to understand chris

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Stella wrote:Roy Keane described Carlos as the best player he had seen. I won't argue with him.

---------------------------------

Got any proof?

Carlos was a very good player but Messi is a great player and is still pretty young.

Messi has won world player of the year three times and has won three CL's.

In his Autobiography.

I am sure you have enough change and charity shop to buy a copy.

Why the insults?

If Keane really does think that then fair enough but I reckon most players/ex players will beg to differ.

Stella wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Sachin Tendulkar
Don Bradman
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralitharan

No other sportsmen/women?

I dont follow any other sport.

Sir Alex Ferguson. Most successful manager of all time.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

Stella wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Sachin Tendulkar
Don Bradman
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralitharan

No other sportsmen/women?

I dont follow any other sport.

Your football ignorance is quite outstanding.

Did you not see the 1966 World Cup when players resorted to kicking the crap out of Pele to stop him? Your telling me that Messi could still shine in a time when football was brutal?

Read what Chris actually says.

Chris is taking a whole viewpoint of Football from where it was to where it is and has actually provided a stunning summary.

Stella wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Stella wrote:Roy Keane described Carlos as the best player he had seen. I won't argue with him.

---------------------------------

Got any proof?

Carlos was a very good player but Messi is a great player and is still pretty young.

Messi has won world player of the year three times and has won three CL's.

In his Autobiography.

I am sure you have enough change and charity shop to buy a copy.

Why the insults?

If Keane really does think that then fair enough but I reckon most players/ex players will beg to differ.

Where did I insult?

I provided the proof.

Don't act shocked that people have a different opinion.

the only stunning summary in chris's statement was that he admitted to not understanding golf. sadly you havent. He missed my point completly in reagrds to messi(the whole point of me bringing that up was from a evolotion case in point in reagrds to your point that nicklaus was way better than woods)

Football: Raul and Ronaldo ( THE Ronaldo)

Darts: Bristow and Wilson

Snooker: Joe, Fred and Steve Davis ( Sorry Mark :P )

Tennis: Mackenroe and Cash

F1: Stirling Moss and Phil Hill ( can we have Mark Gene or Gaston Mazzacane in there too?)

Rugby Union: Jona Lomu and Johnny Wilkinson

Cricket: Tandulcar ( sp) and Tuffnel

Athletics: Bannister and Usain Bolt

Golf: Nickalaus ( sp) and Woods

Boxing: Ali and Fraiser

Pool: Strictland and Souquet

My choices, argue at will :P

You understand football and golf??

Quote of the day

My problem with that theory, Oakey, is that you're abjectly dismissing players because of the era they played in. The decade in which a player emerges doesn't disqualify them from contention - particularly as you're claiming that Messi is the greatest of ALL TIME. The key is in the phrase, mate...

Please tell me, at what point will Messi cease to be the greatest, then?

What's more, your theory of 'newer is always better' doesn't explain why Messi hasn't been able to distinguish himself at a world cup (or on any kind of consistent basis in international matches) the way the likes of Pele and Maradona did. What's your take on this?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Stella wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Stella wrote:Roy Keane described Carlos as the best player he had seen. I won't argue with him.

---------------------------------

Got any proof?

Carlos was a very good player but Messi is a great player and is still pretty young.

Messi has won world player of the year three times and has won three CL's.

In his Autobiography.

I am sure you have enough change and charity shop to buy a copy.

Why the insults?

If Keane really does think that then fair enough but I reckon most players/ex players will beg to differ.

Where did I insult?

I provided the proof.

Don't act shocked that people have a different opinion.

The charity shop comment.

I like it that we have different opinions. I'm just debating in a normal manner and always have on here and the old 606.

Did you watch much of Carlos by the way. maldini was a better LB and to be fair, most of his free-kick went sailing over.

The 'greatness' of Roberto Carlos is based almost entirely on one free kick in the Tournoi and his ridiculous speed / run-up in PES.

To call him one of the greatest players of all time shows an incredible amount of gullibility.

do yourself a favour legend, stick to the topic at hand and stop getting personal. You sound like a child and its not helping your arguments. just because you come across agressive doesnt mean you are right.

88Chris05 wrote:My problem with that theory, Oakey, is that you're abjectly dismissing players because of the era they played in. The decade in which a player emerges doesn't disqualify them from contention - particularly as you're claiming that Messi is the greatest of ALL TIME. The key is in the phrase, mate...

Please tell me, at what point will Messi cease to be the greatest, then?

What's more, your theory of 'newer is always better' doesn't explain why Messi hasn't been able to distinguish himself at a world cup (or on any kind of consistent basis in international matches) the way the likes of Pele and Maradona did. What's your take on this?

he may never become the greatest. however if football keeps evolving then there will allways be players that eclipse his ability.

I am not dismissing any player- my point was as stated before and that its so easy for people to dismiss newer players in sports that are going forward because there is more chance of having more amazing talents, whereas in the past it would have been easier to shine!

Stella wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Stella wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Stella wrote:Roy Keane described Carlos as the best player he had seen. I won't argue with him.

---------------------------------

Got any proof?

Carlos was a very good player but Messi is a great player and is still pretty young.

Messi has won world player of the year three times and has won three CL's.

In his Autobiography.

I am sure you have enough change and charity shop to buy a copy.

Why the insults?

If Keane really does think that then fair enough but I reckon most players/ex players will beg to differ.

Where did I insult?

I provided the proof.

Don't act shocked that people have a different opinion.

The charity shop comment.

I like it that we have different opinions. I'm just debating in a normal manner and always have on here and the old 606.

Did you watch much of Carlos by the way. maldini was a better LB and to be fair, most of his free-kick went sailing over.

The charity shop comment wasn't an insult mate. That's where I got my copy.

I watched Carlos from his Inter Milan days. Yes I agree Maldini was better at defending. Carlos was superb in the tackle and never bottled a tackle. Carlos was a surpeme athlete and his running up and down the flank for 90 minutes was just awesome.

I think people who think he is rated him on his Free Kicks have never watched him at all.

mystiroakey wrote:do yourself a favour legend, stick to the topic at hand and stop getting personal. You sound like a child and its not helping your arguments. just because you come across agressive doesnt mean you are right.

So dismissing peoples opinions like you have is acceptable?

Yep because i am allways right..

Nah just kidding, debating is all right dude, not sure why you need to get personal.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Stella wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Stella wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Stella wrote:Roy Keane described Carlos as the best player he had seen. I won't argue with him.

---------------------------------

Got any proof?

Carlos was a very good player but Messi is a great player and is still pretty young.

Messi has won world player of the year three times and has won three CL's.

In his Autobiography.

I am sure you have enough change and charity shop to buy a copy.

Why the insults?

If Keane really does think that then fair enough but I reckon most players/ex players will beg to differ.

Where did I insult?

I provided the proof.

Don't act shocked that people have a different opinion.

The charity shop comment.

I like it that we have different opinions. I'm just debating in a normal manner and always have on here and the old 606.

Did you watch much of Carlos by the way. maldini was a better LB and to be fair, most of his free-kick went sailing over.

The charity shop comment wasn't an insult mate. That's where I got my copy.

I watched Carlos from his Inter Milan days. Yes I agree Maldini was better at defending. Carlos was superb in the tackle and never bottled a tackle. Carlos was a surpeme athlete and his running up and down the flank for 90 minutes was just awesome.

I think people who think he is rated him on his Free Kicks have never watched him at all.

Well, I've seen quite a bit of him and rate him as a very good attacking LB but his defending at times was average. He did have a great career, no doubt, but IMO he is not on a level with Messi, Zidane, Pele etc.

Everyone please rein the hostilities in now people, everyone is entitled to their opinion on who is the greatest in the chosen sports, but please then leave attacks on choices and judgement out of it, especially when it then becomes personal snipes.

Thank you

Ok so lets back to the nuts and bolts shall we.

Carlos? Is he really a contender in your eyes for the hall of fame?

Or is it just that you feel he is alongside many others better than messi!

Stella wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Stella wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Stella wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Stella wrote:Roy Keane described Carlos as the best player he had seen. I won't argue with him.

---------------------------------

Got any proof?

Carlos was a very good player but Messi is a great player and is still pretty young.

Messi has won world player of the year three times and has won three CL's.

In his Autobiography.

I am sure you have enough change and charity shop to buy a copy.

Why the insults?

If Keane really does think that then fair enough but I reckon most players/ex players will beg to differ.

Where did I insult?

I provided the proof.

Don't act shocked that people have a different opinion.

The charity shop comment.

I like it that we have different opinions. I'm just debating in a normal manner and always have on here and the old 606.

Did you watch much of Carlos by the way. maldini was a better LB and to be fair, most of his free-kick went sailing over.

The charity shop comment wasn't an insult mate. That's where I got my copy.

I watched Carlos from his Inter Milan days. Yes I agree Maldini was better at defending. Carlos was superb in the tackle and never bottled a tackle. Carlos was a surpeme athlete and his running up and down the flank for 90 minutes was just awesome.

I think people who think he is rated him on his Free Kicks have never watched him at all.

Well, I've seen quite a bit of him and rate him as a very good attacking LB but his defending at times was average. He did have a great career, no doubt, but IMO he is not on a level with Messi, Zidane, Pele etc.

I put him there myself. Keane in his book stated that Carlos's attitude on the pitch was amazing as he said that when he won titles, he never jumped up about and over do it on the celebrations. Said his reactions were of one who expected to win. Keane was a fan of his mentality and I admit for me shone a light on him. Maldini was just class. In the Baresi, Blanc mould of someone who enjoyed the defending. If Evra scored more goals I think he would be rated up there with Carlos. I see some similarities between the 2.

mystiroakey wrote:Ok so lets back to the nuts and bolts shall we.

Carlos? Is he really a contender in your eyes for the hall of fame?

Or is it just that you feel he is alongside many others better than messi!

He is a contender.

Look at the Brazil team of the 1970 WC, the appreciation of the FB's were never fully appreciated until later on when the performances grew better with age. Messi is a fine player, but look at the last week. 2 big games and really didn't deliver. Carlos with Cafu will be mentioned in the same breath as Alberto.

Take into account there has been a lot of football played and so many opinions are divided. Like Chris said Messi really needs to do it on the international stage.

Personally I would state Nilton Santos even ahead of Carlos as the greatest ever left back for Brazil.