v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 3

First topic message reminder :

Yesterday’s group pitted four sporting greats from the worlds of Tennis, Cycling, Athletics and American Football against each other and after a close battle between Bjorn Borg and Eddy Merckx that ebbed and flowed all day Borg finally proved victorious taking the group with 26 votes to Merckx 24. Both progress into round 2 with Kershee and Joe Montana exiting the competition at the first stage.

Today’s group see football, boxing, tennis and cricket compete for your votes.

We have just the one article today championing one of the four entrants, so please feel free to add your comments below to assist your chosen participant.

Please vote for the competitor you believe has achieved the most in sport and should progress into the next round.

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Donald Bradman- Cricket- Championed by Fists of fury

Australia
Test record: 6,996 runs in 80 innings at an average of 99.94 (29 centuries)

It is a rare phenomenon indeed where an individual can be undisputedly and universally acknowledged as the finest to have ever participated in a sport. It is rarer still for that individual to be recognised as the greatest there ever will be, despite seemingly no human being beyond Mystic Meg and the recently unmasked Eric Bristow possessing the gift of foresight.

For Pele, there is Maradona. For Nicklaus, there is Woods. For ‘The Don’, there is no rival. He stands alone.

Such are the statistics of Donald George Bradman. Plying his trade throughout the 1930’s and 40’s in the famous ‘baggy green’ of Australia, Bradman compiled a record almost twice as formidable as anyone else in the history of Test cricket. In a sport harking back to 1877, that is an astonishing feat. Bradman’s final Test average of 99.94 grows all the more impressive when you consider that the widely recognised barometer for a modern batsman attaining greatness is, in comparison, a mere 50. For a sportsman to be so far afield of his predecessors, contemporaries and successors is surely unique.

Perhaps indicative of the supremacy asserted almost every time The Don walked to the crease, former Australia captain Bill Woodfull proclaimed Bradman to be “worth three batsmen to Australia.” Where a team scoring 300 in one day is classed as operating at a fairly brisk pace, Bradman once single handedly made 309 on the first day of a Test against England at Headingley. Such dominance of bat over ball was unusually rare in the age of uncovered pitches, and remains so in today’s comparatively batsman friendly era.

Despite being the holder of records that will likely never be challenged in anger, let alone broken, statistics are but one facet of what makes a great sportsman. It often takes a truly inspirational individual to transcend the sport within which they participate. Much as Muhammad Ali transcended the sport of boxing, Don Bradman transcended cricket. Bradman emerged during a period of great economic hardship in Australia, and through the sheer force of his on-field performances it is said gave happiness and hope to a populace in the midst of depression.

You can't tell youngsters today of the attraction of the fellow. I mean, business used to stop in the town when Bradman was playing and likely to go in - all the offices closed, the shops closed; everybody went up to see him play. – England bowler Bill Bowes, 1983

Bradman would go on to exhibit a further trait of any world class sportsman: success in the face of adversity. After scoring an extraordinary 974 runs at an average of 139.14 in the 1930 Ashes tour of England, Bradman was infamously targeted by hostile and aggressive ‘Bodyline’ bowling during the 1932-33 return series in Australia – a theory designed with the sole intention of taking Bradman’s wicket, whereby the English fast bowlers would deliberately target the body of the batsman with a packed leg-side cordon of fielders lying in wait – The Don was almost rendered mortal with a series average of 56.57 (still a world class average by anyone’s standards). It was his own controversial tactic of combating bodyline by backing away and hitting the ball in an unorthodox manner in to the vacant off-side that won Bradman plaudits for attempting to find a solution to Bodyline.

It should be noted that, despite the whole of Australia being in uproar over the “vicious and unsporting” tactics employed by the English captain Douglas Jardine, and despite his own misgivings, Bradman conducted himself with dignity throughout and fought the onslaught in the way he knew best – by scoring runs. ‘Bodyline’, or ‘fast leg theory’ as it was also known, would later be outlawed.

Somewhat ironically, and perhaps unfortunately, the great Don Bradman is as much remembered for his final innings than the unsurpassed genius that had carved a path of destruction through the cricketing world wielding but a plank of willow in the preceding years. Striding to the crease at The Oval in 1948, Bradman required a mere 4 runs from his final Test innings to ensure an overall perfect Test average of 100. Whether through the emotion stirred in The Don through the adulation of the English crowd and opponents as he walked out that day (as much cheers of relief that his utter dominion over England’s bowlers was nearing an end, perhaps?), or the cricketing Gods inflicting a cruel twist of fate as if to reclaim the immortality they had lent him, Bradman was bowled for a duck by Warwickshire leg-spinner Eric Hollies, thus ending his career with that infamous average of 99.94 – a now magical figure in its own right. It will never be bettered.

Next to Mr. Winston Churchill, he was the most celebrated man in England during the summer of 1948. His appearances throughout the country were like one continuous farewell matinée. A miracle has been removed from among us. So must ancient Italy have felt when she heard of the death of Hannibal – cricket writer R.C. Robertson-Glasgow upon Bradman’s retirement, 1949

Sir Donald Bradman died in February of 2001 aged 92. It would have come as a surprise to many that he failed to get out of the 90’s. There are numerous others with a rightful claim to being the greatest sportsman that ever lived, but in Bradman there has surely never been another so superior to their peers. A genius, an icon and a gentleman; The Don satisfies all of the criteria.

Sir Donald George Bradman was, without any question, the greatest phenomenon in the history of cricket, indeed in the history of all ball games. – Wisden Almanack"

Azzy he was one sweet footballer dude.. You call him arrogant and sulky. I call him stylish and class

Why are you banging on about crouch anyway? Whats he got to do with the prce of runner beans?

What was pre and post war Cricket standard like?

super_realist wrote:What was pre and post war Cricket standard like?

probally got a bit worse after the war for obvious reasons. Then got better and better. However we must understand that many things have changed. We have had eras where it was easier for bowlers or batters.. Rules changed alot to bring us to were we are today. Just like all sports(footy,rugby,etc)

For instance england tried to counter bradman by just bouncing him every ball. Rules were changed after that.

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

super_realist wrote:Azzy, Do you not remember Zidane beating England or him winning the CL at Hampden with an outstanding goal.

Can't have a footballer win it though.

I remember France beating England, and Zidane being peripheral for most of the game, then taking advantage of a tired England team's stupid mistakes. And like I said, he could score good goals - Crouch's goal last season for Stoke was better than that one. He simply wasn't the great player everyone says he was. I'll always remember him as a sulky, aloof, arrogant part-Frenchie who was 100% selfish just when his team needed him the most. Give me a chance to pick a World XI from the 90s/00s, and he wouldn't even make my squad of 23.

Blimey, Azza. I remember him beating Brazil almost on his own in 2006, playing the Utd midfield off the park for Juventus on at least two occasions, being MOM in the euro 2000 semi final against Portugal, as well as scoring two in the 98 world cup final.

Forget the headbutt and remember the artist who was the main reason France won two tournys in a row.

Some of the crowds were humungous though. Wasn't there 350k at one match?
Are you talking about Bodyline?

Had to toss a coin between the Don and Martina. The Don won.

yeah bodyline..

For you super

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeG8hqQw1U8

VTR wrote:

Zidane was a great player who sadly tarnished his career towards the end and played in teams surrounded by other great players which contributed to his success.

Just a personal thing, but I never penalise great individuals who still stand out in great teams although I can understand the theory behind it. I don't watch football so I am not fit to pass comment on Zidane, but when I think of someone like Ritchie McCaw, he still managed to to be the stand out player in his team and for me, that only highlights his greatness. He plays in a excellent team but is still head and shoulders above most of his peers and I often wonder how much his teams greatness is a reflection on the standards he sets rather than t'other way round.

Bradman is almost certainly cricket's GOAT (cases could be made for Malcolm Marshall, Gary Sobers and Viv Richards too but sadly it would appear none of those will be on the ballot).

His average of 99.94 is freakish and will never be surpassed. It is the equivalent of a footballer scoring 2 goals in every game they play, or a tennis player who barely dropped a set in their career.

But I do have concerns which should be raised to those that perhaps don't know as much about cricket.

1/ He played in an era where cricket was not yet globalised even to the extent it is today. 37 of his 52 Tests were against England, and the other 15 against teams that were not really major forces at the time. He never played Tests outside of Australia or England.

2/ He played in an era where few of the legendary seamers were active. He started after the old-timers like Lohmann and Barnes who took zillions of wickets off a few paces, and finished before the first of the West Indian legends emerged. His biggest challenge was against England's Harold Larwood during the 1933 'Bodyline' series. In that series he averaged a merely superb 56.57.

This isn't to say that I don't want him to go through - I do. But I'm not sure I would be entirely comfortable with him taking the trophy at the end.

----

My vote today will go to Navratilova. She needs the support and deserves to go further than Round 1.

It is true that she didn't have the impact that Borg did in the men's game, or arguably the impact that Billie-Jean King or the Williams sisters had on the women's game. But she was was utterly dominant. She reached Wimbledon semi-finals in 13 consecutive years (1978-1990) and on 4 other occasions too. In addition she has 9 Grand Slam titles away from SW19, showing that she was an all-rounder. She continued to be a competitive doubles player right up until 2006, showing incredible fitness in a sport normally dominated by the young.

----

I'm not a football fan, and so I can't make much of a judgement on Zidane. I remember that around the years 1998-2002 he was generally regarded as the best in the world, but this wasn't as clear cut as it is with Messi now. He wouldn't usually be put on the same plane as greats of the '70s and '80s either.

Even were he the football GOAT, his case should be badly hurt by discipline issues. By head-butting an opponent in a world final he did damage to his sport on its greatest stage. That isn't acceptable.

----

I know nothing of Harry Greb. A shame that there is no article to support him, but I might make a very rare visit to the Boxing forum to check him out, if only to find out about him rather than to influence my vote.

Diggers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Diggers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Diggers wrote:As I dont really give a monkeys about doubles in terms of a tennis GOAT then Id probably have Graf ahead of Navratilova.

And if I didn't give a monkey's about boxing I'd put Tim Henman ahead of Muhammed Ali.

Odd thing to say. Care to explain ?

Merely that you've made an arbitrary, subjective decision to disregard doubles because you don't care about it (it's only doubles, it doesn't count). The fact that it is an important part of the sport and shows Martina's all-round greatness has been disregarded without good explanation or reason.
If I didn't care about boxing (or cricket or whatever), I'd similarly disregard any boxer's claim to be the GOAT, because it's only boxing, it's doesn't count.

Fair enough, I look forward to seeing how often doubles is mentioned when it comes to discussing Federer. Funnily enough when discussing Borg yesterday I dont think the word doubles even feautred in the whole debate so I wont be holding my breath. Presumably McEnroe will be coming up on here in the 64 as won 9 doubles slam titles and 7 singles so is only just behind Federer and way ahead of Borg.
I stand by my first comment, odd thing to say.

You're assuming I attach exactly the same importance to doubles as singles, which I don't. But I stand my my comment - it's odd to completely disregard doubles.

Shelsey, must say I'm very surprised by that.

Navratilova was great, but not in the same league in terms of superiority to her peers/others that have ever played the game as Bradman is.

Tennis, and in particular women's tennis, was likewise poorer when she was operating.

You have overlooked the fact that Bradman played on what were pretty difficult, uncovered tracks, too.

I think Shelsey makes some good points, However when he mentions the bodyline series and the lower average. We must also consider that bolwers cannot target a player today in the same way!

mystiroakey wrote:Why are you banging on about crouch anyway? Whats he got to do with the prce of runner beans?

Twice people have mentioned his CL goal, I said that most players have scored great goals, including the likes of not-so-great Peter Crouch.

I never saw Zidane control a game in the way I've seen Scholes, Keane, Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Vieira, Toure, Ronaldo, Messi, Redondo, Staknovic or Boban control them. Shame for me I guess, but I've watched every single international tournament since 1990 and I can't remember one game where he's been class.

Can't believe there's so much debate about this.
Bradman record is, statistically, 40% better than anyone else who has ever played his sport EVER.

In addition, a detailed scientific study presented by statistician Charles Davis in 2000 argued that Bradman's 99.94 Test batting average made him the most dominant sportsman of all time.

By Davis' reckoning, a basketballer would need a career average of 43 points a game, a golfer more than 25 major titles, or a tennis player 15-20 grand slam titles in 10 years to be "Bradman-equivalent". Bradman scored centuries at a rate of better than one every three innings and converted nearly a third of his tonnes into double centuries.

So, Bradman for me.

Also, bodyline took Bradman by surprise. He would have no doubt changed his technique slightly to combat it, if it was allowed to go on.
Still, 57 ain't too shabby.

Peter crouch to be fair is possibly the most underrated english footballer ever. But i can certainly remember Zidane controlling many games from that CM spot..The closest i have seen to his control during frances wins was pirlo for italy against england in the recent tourny

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Diggers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Diggers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Diggers wrote:As I dont really give a monkeys about doubles in terms of a tennis GOAT then Id probably have Graf ahead of Navratilova.

And if I didn't give a monkey's about boxing I'd put Tim Henman ahead of Muhammed Ali.

Odd thing to say. Care to explain ?

Merely that you've made an arbitrary, subjective decision to disregard doubles because you don't care about it (it's only doubles, it doesn't count). The fact that it is an important part of the sport and shows Martina's all-round greatness has been disregarded without good explanation or reason.
If I didn't care about boxing (or cricket or whatever), I'd similarly disregard any boxer's claim to be the GOAT, because it's only boxing, it's doesn't count.

Fair enough, I look forward to seeing how often doubles is mentioned when it comes to discussing Federer. Funnily enough when discussing Borg yesterday I dont think the word doubles even feautred in the whole debate so I wont be holding my breath. Presumably McEnroe will be coming up on here in the 64 as won 9 doubles slam titles and 7 singles so is only just behind Federer and way ahead of Borg.
I stand by my first comment, odd thing to say.

You're assuming I attach exactly the same importance to doubles as singles, which I don't. But I stand my my comment - it's odd to completely disregard doubles.

Its pretty much completely disregarded on the tennis boards, you will barely see it mentioned when it comes to discussing the relative merits of the tennis GOAT. As I say, the fact it wasn't even taken into consideration when discussing Borg yesterday speaks volumes. Nor will it when it comes to Federer or Sampras I suspect.
But fair enough, if its important to you thats fine, thats what makes the debate interesting.

To defend the Don for a minute there were also a number of things he had to endure which modern players did not. Uncovered pitches, no limit on the amount of shorter pitches that could be balled and none of the protection afforded to modern players by helmets, thigh pads etc. Whilst his era may not have been one of the greatest for seamers it still had the likes of Larwood who was certainly no slouch. However whenever I consider Bradman the question I find myself drawn back to is if conditions were so easy at the time why was nobody else during that era coming close to matching his feats or averages.

Also should not be forgotten many a modern player has boosted his averages against some fairly ordinary Zimbabweans and such like in various competitions.

To add to my earlier comment:

The Don: Statistically by far the best batsman ever. Indeed, there is a sensible claim for him statistically the most exceptional sportman ever, in that his stats are a greater outlier to the rest of his sport than anyone else.
It is sometimes suggested that Bradman benefitted from his era (mainly the 1930s), but if you look at the averages of other exceptional batsmen, there is a cluster who average between 55 and 60 and there seems to be no era that does better than another (at least after WW1, averages were markedly lower before this)- as such, it's reasonable to think that Bradman would have been equally exceptional in any era.

Navratilova - The best all-round tennis player ever, taking into account her singles and doubles records and career longevity, and she'd certainly be a good candidate for being the greatest sportswoman of all time.

Zidane - World and European champion for France and Champions League winner with Juve, as the playmaker and the best player in his teams of the time. However, for my money he'd only be in the lower part of the top 10 footballers of all time, so no chance to come out of this group.

Greb - Not a name I knew until today. Clearly, boxing in the pre-war years was hugely different from the modern era, so it is difficult to understand how his record would stack up against more modern fighters. The fact that he, as a middleweight, was the only fighter ever to beat Gene Tunney, then a light-heavy and ultimately a heavyweight world champion, shows that he must have been extraordinary. Not sure though how a boxer most of us don't know about could be the GOAT.

Pitches in Australia at the time (though uncovered) were considered flat.

And there were a number of others with superb career stats at the time (though not as good as Bradman).

Again, I reiterate that I want Bradman through. Just have concerns about him claiming the trophy at the end of the day (which isn't really the issue in hand now).

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Why are you banging on about crouch anyway? Whats he got to do with the prce of runner beans?

Twice people have mentioned his CL goal, I said that most players have scored great goals, including the likes of not-so-great Peter Crouch.

I never saw Zidane control a game in the way I've seen Scholes, Keane, Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Vieira, Toure, Ronaldo, Messi, Redondo, Staknovic or Boban control them. Shame for me I guess, but I've watched every single international tournament since 1990 and I can't remember one game where he's been class.

Really ? When I watched the guy play he was usually the best player on the park by a country mile, for France, Madrid and Juventus.

Shelsey93 wrote:Pitches in Australia at the time (though uncovered) were considered flat.

And there were a number of others with superb career stats at the time (though not as good as Bradman).

Again, I reiterate that I want Bradman through. Just have concerns about him claiming the trophy at the end of the day (which isn't really the issue in hand now).

Nobody came close to 99 though. Hammond was considered great but even he had to dig in on wet wickets and play for time. Bradman came in and took Larwood apart in 1929 and then in 1930. Larwood was even dropped after one mauling.

Diggers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Diggers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Diggers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Diggers wrote:As I dont really give a monkeys about doubles in terms of a tennis GOAT then Id probably have Graf ahead of Navratilova.

And if I didn't give a monkey's about boxing I'd put Tim Henman ahead of Muhammed Ali.

Odd thing to say. Care to explain ?

Merely that you've made an arbitrary, subjective decision to disregard doubles because you don't care about it (it's only doubles, it doesn't count). The fact that it is an important part of the sport and shows Martina's all-round greatness has been disregarded without good explanation or reason.
If I didn't care about boxing (or cricket or whatever), I'd similarly disregard any boxer's claim to be the GOAT, because it's only boxing, it's doesn't count.

Fair enough, I look forward to seeing how often doubles is mentioned when it comes to discussing Federer. Funnily enough when discussing Borg yesterday I dont think the word doubles even feautred in the whole debate so I wont be holding my breath. Presumably McEnroe will be coming up on here in the 64 as won 9 doubles slam titles and 7 singles so is only just behind Federer and way ahead of Borg.
I stand by my first comment, odd thing to say.

You're assuming I attach exactly the same importance to doubles as singles, which I don't. But I stand my my comment - it's odd to completely disregard doubles.

Its pretty much completely disregarded on the tennis boards, you will barely see it mentioned when it comes to discussing the relative merits of the tennis GOAT. As I say, the fact it wasn't even taken into consideration when discussing Borg yesterday speaks volumes. Nor will it when it comes to Federer or Sampras I suspect.
But fair enough, if its important to you thats fine, thats what makes the debate interesting.

Again an assumption. There are many merits to the GOAT which are easily dismissed. The formats, eras, technology and the sexes. It shows you how highly complex it is to out-right point to one GOAT. Navratilova really is the only one who can be given such consideration.

Diggers wrote:

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Why are you banging on about crouch anyway? Whats he got to do with the prce of runner beans?

Twice people have mentioned his CL goal, I said that most players have scored great goals, including the likes of not-so-great Peter Crouch.

I never saw Zidane control a game in the way I've seen Scholes, Keane, Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Vieira, Toure, Ronaldo, Messi, Redondo, Staknovic or Boban control them. Shame for me I guess, but I've watched every single international tournament since 1990 and I can't remember one game where he's been class.

Really ? When I watched the guy play he was usually the best player on the park by a country mile, for France, Madrid and Juventus.

Me to.

He stood out against Scholes, Effenberg and the other great midfielders of his time.

Rowley makes excellent points there.

No protection, no limit to bouncers (Larwood is rated as one of the fastest bowlers the world has ever seen...yet the Don had to stand up to him bowling those limitless missiles at his body/head, with no helmet/chest guard/various protectors to help defend himself) and uncovered pitches that would only assist in sharp bounce and jagged seam movement.

Also, as said above, if things were easy then why was nobody else even in the same country as The Don when it came to averages and statistics? He is, quite simply, unrivalled as a sportsman in my book, let alone a cricketer. Ali is the only one that runs him close - but that is of course my own opinion.

Shelsey93 wrote:Bradman is almost certainly cricket's GOAT (cases could be made for Malcolm Marshall, Gary Sobers and Viv Richards too but sadly it would appear none of those will be on the ballot).

His average of 99.94 is freakish and will never be surpassed. It is the equivalent of a footballer scoring 2 goals in every game they play, or a tennis player who barely dropped a set in their career.

But I do have concerns which should be raised to those that perhaps don't know as much about cricket.

1/ He played in an era where cricket was not yet globalised even to the extent it is today. 37 of his 52 Tests were against England, and the other 15 against teams that were not really major forces at the time. He never played Tests outside of Australia or England.

2/ He played in an era where few of the legendary seamers were active. He started after the old-timers like Lohmann and Barnes who took zillions of wickets off a few paces, and finished before the first of the West Indian legends emerged. His biggest challenge was against England's Harold Larwood during the 1933 'Bodyline' series. In that series he averaged a merely superb 56.57.

This isn't to say that I don't want him to go through - I do. But I'm not sure I would be entirely comfortable with him taking the trophy at the end.

----

My vote today will go to Navratilova. She needs the support and deserves to go further than Round 1.

It is true that she didn't have the impact that Borg did in the men's game, or arguably the impact that Billie-Jean King or the Williams sisters had on the women's game. But she was was utterly dominant. She reached Wimbledon semi-finals in 13 consecutive years (1978-1990) and on 4 other occasions too. In addition she has 9 Grand Slam titles away from SW19, showing that she was an all-rounder. She continued to be a competitive doubles player right up until 2006, showing incredible fitness in a sport normally dominated by the young.

----

I'm not a football fan, and so I can't make much of a judgement on Zidane. I remember that around the years 1998-2002 he was generally regarded as the best in the world, but this wasn't as clear cut as it is with Messi now. He wouldn't usually be put on the same plane as greats of the '70s and '80s either.

Even were he the football GOAT, his case should be badly hurt by discipline issues. By head-butting an opponent in a world final he did damage to his sport on its greatest stage. That isn't acceptable.

----

I know nothing of Harry Greb. A shame that there is no article to support him, but I might make a very rare visit to the Boxing forum to check him out, if only to find out about him rather than to influence my vote.

I'll start by pointing out that I'm allergic to cucumber. So cucumber sandwiches ...

It may well be the case that the bowling in Bradman's era was weaker - but he still managed to perform much better than any of the other batsmen of his time - you could argue a blip if every great batsman then was averaging 80+, but they weren't. Batting with next to no protective equipment, on uncovered pitches makes a big difference.

While he "only" averaged 56 in the Bodyline series, the next best Australian on the averages chart was McCabe with 42 - and his average was comparable to those of the top English batsmen (Hammond averaged 55, while Paynter needed several not outs to inflate his to 61), who weren't facing Bodyline.


I've faced several international fast bowlers in club cricket (granted Sir Richard Hadlee was in his late 40s the time I faced him, and Carl Bulfin had a pretty brief international career. Shane Bond otoh ...). Facing up to a big hunk of leather coming at you at 80-90mph is ******** frightening. I don't even want to think about facing Larwood, without a helmet, wearing bamboo pads and unpadded gloves, at 100mph.


On the flip side, arguments on what Bradman might have achieved but for WWII don't hold that much sway - he came down with fibromyalgia in 1941 and couldn't hold a razor or hairbrush let alone a bat for nearly a year. He wasn't fit enough to tour NZ in 1946 and never recovered full feeling in his right hand.

Martina heralded a brave new world in womens tennis. Her overall legacy and contribution to the development of the sport is far greater than the Williams' sisters, and her on-court achievements dwarf those of BJK.

She was the first female player to become super fit in the pursuit of excellence. She left no stone unturned, meticulously managing her diet, training methods, including working out in the gym. She was incredibly fit and strong. She set the model for super athletes in tennis and her advice was actively sought by contemporaries such as Ivan Lendl.

She is, along with Steffi Graf, the most dominant female athlete in history. Throughout the eighties she was virtually untouchable and only age and the emergence of another legend ousted her from the top spot.

The dedication, focus and talent required to be that successful for that long is remarkeable. She gets my vote.

Much as Bradman's record is outstanding, I cannot honestly place the same degree of levity on a fringe sport played almost a hundred years ago. I see Martina as a greater athlete by any definition of the term. At her peak she was probably faster, fitter and more durable than The Don. Hell she could probably kick his butt in a fight!

Bradman's figures were undoubtedly greatly inflated by the era and competition. He basically played against the same people over and over again and accumulated ridiculous stats on that basis.

Bradman was a huge fish in a small pond.

Martina was a huge fish in an ocean.



emancipator

emancipator wrote:Martina heralded a brave new world in womens tennis. Her overall legacy and contribution to the development of the sport is far greater than the Williams' sisters, and her on-court achievements dwarf those of BJK.

She was the first female player to become super fit in the pursuit of excellence. She left no stone unturned, meticulously managing her diet, training methods, including working out in the gym. She was incredibly fit and strong. She set the model for super athletes in tennis and her advice was actively sought by contemporaries such as Ivan Lendl.

She is, along with Steffi Graf, the most dominant female athlete in history. Throughout the eighties she was virtually untouchable and only age and the emergence of another legend ousted her from the top spot.

The dedication, focus and talent required to be that successful for that long is remarkeable. She gets my vote.

Much as Bradman's record is outstanding, I cannot honestly place the same degree of levity on a fringe sport played almost a hundred years ago. I see Martina as a greater athlete by any definition of the term. At her peak she was probably faster, fitter and more durable than The Don. Hell she could probably kick his butt in a fight!

Bradman's figures were undoubtedly greatly inflated by the era and competition. He basically played against the same people over and over again and accumulated ridiculous stats on that basis.

Bradman was a huge fish in a small pond.

Martina was a huge fish in an ocean.



emancipator

Superbly written

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Diggers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Diggers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Diggers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Diggers wrote:As I dont really give a monkeys about doubles in terms of a tennis GOAT then Id probably have Graf ahead of Navratilova.

And if I didn't give a monkey's about boxing I'd put Tim Henman ahead of Muhammed Ali.

Odd thing to say. Care to explain ?

Merely that you've made an arbitrary, subjective decision to disregard doubles because you don't care about it (it's only doubles, it doesn't count). The fact that it is an important part of the sport and shows Martina's all-round greatness has been disregarded without good explanation or reason.
If I didn't care about boxing (or cricket or whatever), I'd similarly disregard any boxer's claim to be the GOAT, because it's only boxing, it's doesn't count.

Fair enough, I look forward to seeing how often doubles is mentioned when it comes to discussing Federer. Funnily enough when discussing Borg yesterday I dont think the word doubles even feautred in the whole debate so I wont be holding my breath. Presumably McEnroe will be coming up on here in the 64 as won 9 doubles slam titles and 7 singles so is only just behind Federer and way ahead of Borg.
I stand by my first comment, odd thing to say.

You're assuming I attach exactly the same importance to doubles as singles, which I don't. But I stand my my comment - it's odd to completely disregard doubles.

Its pretty much completely disregarded on the tennis boards, you will barely see it mentioned when it comes to discussing the relative merits of the tennis GOAT. As I say, the fact it wasn't even taken into consideration when discussing Borg yesterday speaks volumes. Nor will it when it comes to Federer or Sampras I suspect.
But fair enough, if its important to you thats fine, thats what makes the debate interesting.

Again an assumption. There are many merits to the GOAT which are easily dismissed. The formats, eras, technology and the sexes. It shows you how highly complex it is to out-right point to one GOAT. Navratilova really is the only one who can be given such consideration.

Its not an assumption that doubles is rarely discussed on the tennis board when it comes to the GOAT debates, its not asn assumption that it wasnt even mentioned re Borg...those are facts.
Its fine if people want to take doubles into account, however I personally feel that the vast majority of people consider the benchmark to be the singles careers. Ive watched mixed doubles for years and its fun to watch but its basically a bit of a jolly.
Also we were talking about depths of field before, an awful lot of top singles players, especially in the modern era, dont even play slam doubles.

"I see Martina as a greater athlete by any definition of the term"

we are not trying to find the goat athlete Mr Emacipator dude.

Bradman was also a very good tennis player and would no doubt, beaten Martina in a three setter

[quote="Stella"]Bradman was also a very good tennis player and would no doubt, beaten Martina in a three setter [/quote


Aye

and replace the tennis ball with a cricket ball and no one could hold up to him on a tennis court!!

Stella wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Why are you banging on about crouch anyway? Whats he got to do with the prce of runner beans?

Twice people have mentioned his CL goal, I said that most players have scored great goals, including the likes of not-so-great Peter Crouch.

I never saw Zidane control a game in the way I've seen Scholes, Keane, Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Vieira, Toure, Ronaldo, Messi, Redondo, Staknovic or Boban control them. Shame for me I guess, but I've watched every single international tournament since 1990 and I can't remember one game where he's been class.

Really ? When I watched the guy play he was usually the best player on the park by a country mile, for France, Madrid and Juventus.

Me to.

He stood out against Scholes, Effenberg and the other great midfielders of his time.

Yeah I don't get this rather weird statement that Zidane wasn't very good.

The guy ran the show most of the time. He was the heartbeat of all the teams he played in and he nearly always stepped up on the biggest occasions. To this day I have never seen anyone pluck the ball out of the air the way Zidane could. He was also one of the few truely two-footed players. He could pass and score with both feet, and I'm not talking about tap ins. He could power them in from 30 yards with both feet. IMO he was a different player to Messi but every bit as good.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

emancipator wrote:Martina heralded a brave new world in womens tennis. Her overall legacy and contribution to the development of the sport is far greater than the Williams' sisters, and her on-court achievements dwarf those of BJK.

She was the first female player to become super fit in the pursuit of excellence. She left no stone unturned, meticulously managing her diet, training methods, including working out in the gym. She was incredibly fit and strong. She set the model for super athletes in tennis and her advice was actively sought by contemporaries such as Ivan Lendl.

She is, along with Steffi Graf, the most dominant female athlete in history. Throughout the eighties she was virtually untouchable and only age and the emergence of another legend ousted her from the top spot.

The dedication, focus and talent required to be that successful for that long is remarkeable. She gets my vote.

Much as Bradman's record is outstanding, I cannot honestly place the same degree of levity on a fringe sport played almost a hundred years ago. I see Martina as a greater athlete by any definition of the term. At her peak she was probably faster, fitter and more durable than The Don. Hell she could probably kick his butt in a fight!

Bradman's figures were undoubtedly greatly inflated by the era and competition. He basically played against the same people over and over again and accumulated ridiculous stats on that basis.

Bradman was a huge fish in a small pond.

Martina was a huge fish in an ocean.



emancipator

Superbly written

And Navratilova didnt play against the same players over and over....lets take a look at how many times she faced Evert for a start. Were there really more professional women tennis players taking the game seriously than cricketers doing the same during Bradmans era, I seriously doubt it.
The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?

"The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?"

Sold on that one.. The perfect retort and imbecable reasoning

Diggers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

emancipator wrote:Martina heralded a brave new world in womens tennis. Her overall legacy and contribution to the development of the sport is far greater than the Williams' sisters, and her on-court achievements dwarf those of BJK.

She was the first female player to become super fit in the pursuit of excellence. She left no stone unturned, meticulously managing her diet, training methods, including working out in the gym. She was incredibly fit and strong. She set the model for super athletes in tennis and her advice was actively sought by contemporaries such as Ivan Lendl.

She is, along with Steffi Graf, the most dominant female athlete in history. Throughout the eighties she was virtually untouchable and only age and the emergence of another legend ousted her from the top spot.

The dedication, focus and talent required to be that successful for that long is remarkeable. She gets my vote.

Much as Bradman's record is outstanding, I cannot honestly place the same degree of levity on a fringe sport played almost a hundred years ago. I see Martina as a greater athlete by any definition of the term. At her peak she was probably faster, fitter and more durable than The Don. Hell she could probably kick his butt in a fight!

Bradman's figures were undoubtedly greatly inflated by the era and competition. He basically played against the same people over and over again and accumulated ridiculous stats on that basis.

Bradman was a huge fish in a small pond.

Martina was a huge fish in an ocean.



emancipator

Superbly written

And Navratilova didnt play against the same players over and over....lets take a look at how many times she faced Evert for a start. Were there really more professional women tennis players taking the game seriously than cricketers doing the same during Bradmans era, I seriously doubt it.
The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?

Right so she played Evert in every round of a Slam/WTA tour event?

Ooooh tough group.

Zidane - great footballer who won everything. For me his greatest achievement was in getting a fairly average french side to the WC final in 2006 - in particular his performance against Brazil in the quarter final was astonishing, and remains the greatest individual performance I have ever seen on a football field in terms of skill (and ultimately impact - it was Zidane's free-kick which led to Henry's goal). However whilst I believe in time football will remember Zidane as the greatest ever french player and possibly european, the likes of Pélé and Maradonna (and in time surely Messi) dominate discussions on a world stage, and rightly so. On the cricket boards we also hold someone's moral fibre as important, and Zidane obviously loses out on that. One of my favourite ever players, but in such elevated company I am surprised at the number of votes he is receiving.

Navratilova is undoubtedly the most successful tennis player of all time, but I'm not sure that makes her the greatest (even treating men and women performances as equal, which I think is only fair, or else we may as well straight-away dismiss any woman who competed in anything which wasn't gymnastics or diving or equestrian). I think most tennis fans and casual fans would give that accolade to Federer now, and IMO rightly so. I guess the questions are one of competition (whilst Martina faced some great players, the general standard was fairly poor) and of course style, which is probably unfair.

IN any case, in this round (as in the previous one) we have one candidate who lies head and shoulders above the rest in Don Bradman. People have tried to make sense of different eras in cricket and whether it was easier or harder in the Don's day. Whilst it's true that he had to face far fewer opponents than today's cricketer, and the standards of fielding and professionalism made batting easier, against that you have uncovered pitches, almost non-existent protection, the fact that he himself had to live off other things than cricket (so couldn't practice as much as today's cricketers), and of course that touring could be far more challenging (often more than a month to get the boat to England, you can imagine what state players were in on arrival).

Statistics tend to suggest that all these things evened themselves out. With that in mind, to have someone who is 40% better than his nearest rival is extraordinary and unparalleled in any sport.

Quite simply, the Don is the GOAT.

Some more Don Bradman gold for you to consider:

His conversion rate of 50's to 100's was a remarkable astounding 70%, which is by far the best in cricketing history - nearly 20% better than the next best (Azzharudin) with 20+ Test centuries.

He scored a century or more in 36% of his innings, which is again by far the best and exactly 20% more than the next best (Kallis).

So, regardless of eras, that shows just how magnificent his statistics are. A bit of a cross-era comparison seems a pretty good means of banishing the lesser bowling myth.

I never said he wasn't very good, I said he wasn't the great player people said he was.

As I also said earlier, I saw him play probably 70-80 times, for France, Juve and Real. I don't think I ever saw him take a game by the scruff of the neck and really dominate it. He has this almost mythical reputation that I just cannot fathom.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Diggers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

emancipator wrote:Martina heralded a brave new world in womens tennis. Her overall legacy and contribution to the development of the sport is far greater than the Williams' sisters, and her on-court achievements dwarf those of BJK.

She was the first female player to become super fit in the pursuit of excellence. She left no stone unturned, meticulously managing her diet, training methods, including working out in the gym. She was incredibly fit and strong. She set the model for super athletes in tennis and her advice was actively sought by contemporaries such as Ivan Lendl.

She is, along with Steffi Graf, the most dominant female athlete in history. Throughout the eighties she was virtually untouchable and only age and the emergence of another legend ousted her from the top spot.

The dedication, focus and talent required to be that successful for that long is remarkeable. She gets my vote.

Much as Bradman's record is outstanding, I cannot honestly place the same degree of levity on a fringe sport played almost a hundred years ago. I see Martina as a greater athlete by any definition of the term. At her peak she was probably faster, fitter and more durable than The Don. Hell she could probably kick his butt in a fight!

Bradman's figures were undoubtedly greatly inflated by the era and competition. He basically played against the same people over and over again and accumulated ridiculous stats on that basis.

Bradman was a huge fish in a small pond.

Martina was a huge fish in an ocean.



emancipator

Superbly written

And Navratilova didnt play against the same players over and over....lets take a look at how many times she faced Evert for a start. Were there really more professional women tennis players taking the game seriously than cricketers doing the same during Bradmans era, I seriously doubt it.
The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?

Right so she played Evert in every round of a Slam/WTA tour event?

She played her nearly a 100 times, quite a regular opponent wouldnt you say? Do you think Bradman faced the same bowler every time ?
See you havent commented on the fact that part of the reason Navratilova was so successful is that she took conditioning seriously, unlike the vast majority of her opponents.

emancipator wrote:At her peak she was probably faster, fitter and more durable than The Don. Hell she could probably kick his butt in a fight!

What a ridiculous comment! Ellyse Perry (who? exactly) is undoubtedly faster, fitter and more durable than both the Don, Navratilova, and any number of sportsmen we are going to discuss. So what?

It is a given that sportsmen as a whole have become better and more athletic (in absolute terms) over the course of years. If we are going to only measure by that yardstick, then only current sportsmen should enter the discussion. Of course this is nonsense, so we accept that we measure them by how far ahead of their peers they were, and how good their opposition was.

The Don's opposition was easily as good and as varied as Navratilova's.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Diggers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

emancipator wrote:Martina heralded a brave new world in womens tennis. Her overall legacy and contribution to the development of the sport is far greater than the Williams' sisters, and her on-court achievements dwarf those of BJK.

She was the first female player to become super fit in the pursuit of excellence. She left no stone unturned, meticulously managing her diet, training methods, including working out in the gym. She was incredibly fit and strong. She set the model for super athletes in tennis and her advice was actively sought by contemporaries such as Ivan Lendl.

She is, along with Steffi Graf, the most dominant female athlete in history. Throughout the eighties she was virtually untouchable and only age and the emergence of another legend ousted her from the top spot.

The dedication, focus and talent required to be that successful for that long is remarkeable. She gets my vote.

Much as Bradman's record is outstanding, I cannot honestly place the same degree of levity on a fringe sport played almost a hundred years ago. I see Martina as a greater athlete by any definition of the term. At her peak she was probably faster, fitter and more durable than The Don. Hell she could probably kick his butt in a fight!

Bradman's figures were undoubtedly greatly inflated by the era and competition. He basically played against the same people over and over again and accumulated ridiculous stats on that basis.

Bradman was a huge fish in a small pond.

Martina was a huge fish in an ocean.



emancipator

Superbly written

And Navratilova didnt play against the same players over and over....lets take a look at how many times she faced Evert for a start. Were there really more professional women tennis players taking the game seriously than cricketers doing the same during Bradmans era, I seriously doubt it.
The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?

Right so she played Evert in every round of a Slam/WTA tour event?

Indeed, from the open era onwards the tennis pool has been large. By the early nineties it was enormous. Martina reached her last W final in '94, by then womens tennis was as global as it gets. I can't think of a more global female sport. She played doubles at slam level until 2006. I think it's a fair bet to say that, given tennis is an individual sport and cricket is a team sport, Martina came up against a far greater pool of talent than Bradman.

I'm not trying to demean Bradman's achievements but I think some context is important as we are debating the GOAT across all sports. The cricket of Bradman's era is a different world in terms of athleticism, professionalism and competitiveness.

When I stated that Martina heralded in a brave new world I did not mean by that statement that players previous to her were not fit or strong. They were, but Martina took it took a different level - super athlete, comparable to the fittest players on tour even today.

Diggers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Diggers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

emancipator wrote:Martina heralded a brave new world in womens tennis. Her overall legacy and contribution to the development of the sport is far greater than the Williams' sisters, and her on-court achievements dwarf those of BJK.

She was the first female player to become super fit in the pursuit of excellence. She left no stone unturned, meticulously managing her diet, training methods, including working out in the gym. She was incredibly fit and strong. She set the model for super athletes in tennis and her advice was actively sought by contemporaries such as Ivan Lendl.

She is, along with Steffi Graf, the most dominant female athlete in history. Throughout the eighties she was virtually untouchable and only age and the emergence of another legend ousted her from the top spot.

The dedication, focus and talent required to be that successful for that long is remarkeable. She gets my vote.

Much as Bradman's record is outstanding, I cannot honestly place the same degree of levity on a fringe sport played almost a hundred years ago. I see Martina as a greater athlete by any definition of the term. At her peak she was probably faster, fitter and more durable than The Don. Hell she could probably kick his butt in a fight!

Bradman's figures were undoubtedly greatly inflated by the era and competition. He basically played against the same people over and over again and accumulated ridiculous stats on that basis.

Bradman was a huge fish in a small pond.

Martina was a huge fish in an ocean.



emancipator

Superbly written

And Navratilova didnt play against the same players over and over....lets take a look at how many times she faced Evert for a start. Were there really more professional women tennis players taking the game seriously than cricketers doing the same during Bradmans era, I seriously doubt it.
The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?

Right so she played Evert in every round of a Slam/WTA tour event?

She played her nearly a 100 times, quite a regular opponent wouldnt you say? Do you think Bradman faced the same bowler every time ?
See you havent commented on the fact that part of the reason Navratilova was so successful is that she took conditioning seriously, unlike the vast majority of her opponents.

Well how many bowlers did he face as it seemed England were the only team Australia played! 37 out of the 52 Tests against England! Shall I mock him?

As this is 'Fact' please can you provide the links to players who said a lack of professionalism was the reason for their lack of success.

mystiroakey wrote:"The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?"

Sold on that one.. The perfect retort and imbecable reasoning

We could say the same about Bradman though - were the bowlers super-fit in those days, capable of steaming in relentlessly. Did they practice catching as rigourously as now, have videos to watch batsmans' techniques to spot flaws etc.
Ans surely one aspect of greatness is to be one step ahead of the competition - to be the first to do something that sets you apart?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?"

Sold on that one.. The perfect retort and imbecable reasoning

We could say the same about Bradman though - were the bowlers super-fit in those days, capable of steaming in relentlessly. Did they practice catching as rigourously as now, have videos to watch batsmans' techniques to spot flaws etc.
Ans surely one aspect of greatness is to be one step ahead of the competition - to be the first to do something that sets you apart?

aye you could and you could say the same about many.. But when you consider bradmans average... This is no nomral average. It beggars belief is what it does!!

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Well how many bowlers did he face as it seemed England were the only team Australia played! 37 out of the 52 Tests against England! Shall I mock him?

A career spanning 17 years so I think he'll have faced quite a few different bowlers...
Also, quite a few matches against other nations where he did sort of ok... (in fact his record against England was slightly less good than overall)

JuliusHMarx wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?"

Sold on that one.. The perfect retort and imbecable reasoning

We could say the same about Bradman though - were the bowlers super-fit in those days, capable of steaming in relentlessly. Did they practice catching as rigourously as now, have videos to watch batsmans' techniques to spot flaws etc.
Ans surely one aspect of greatness is to be one step ahead of the competition - to be the first to do something that sets you apart?

Of course. I made that point in my post earlier. But Bradman was not just ahead of the competition, he was "the opposition + (at least) 2/3ds again"! That is further ahead of the opposition than anyone else has been (and maybe ever will be, with increased professionalism it is difficult to see that kind of gap ever repeated).

Mike Selig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Well how many bowlers did he face as it seemed England were the only team Australia played! 37 out of the 52 Tests against England! Shall I mock him?

A career spanning 17 years so I think he'll have faced quite a few different bowlers...
Also, quite a few matches against other nations where he did sort of ok... (in fact his record against England was slightly less good than overall)

Given Navratilova's spans over 30 years suggests who clearly has the greater longevity and different opponents.

Too many assumptions have been made on this thread about tennis in the 70's/80's which is quite frankly poor.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?"

Sold on that one.. The perfect retort and imbecable reasoning

We could say the same about Bradman though - were the bowlers super-fit in those days, capable of steaming in relentlessly. Did they practice catching as rigourously as now, have videos to watch batsmans' techniques to spot flaws etc.
Ans surely one aspect of greatness is to be one step ahead of the competition - to be the first to do something that sets you apart?

Did Bradman watch videos to spot what grip, Tate would take etc?