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"

"Being a tennis fan I like to challenge the un-informed comments and see just how you quantify talent because you couldn't even name a top player that Graf faced while making your commen"


Lol legend is back, classic stuff. It isnt wimby yet pal!!

Re the man v woman argument, seems a bit odd to me to worry about it. I mean its not like that SRR would ever have beaten Ali, they fought in the same sport, but that sport makes allowances for the physicality of the individual, as do most combat sports and also sports like rowing.

mystiroakey wrote:"Being a tennis fan I like to challenge the un-informed comments and see just how you quantify talent because you couldn't even name a top player that Graf faced while making your commen"


Lol legend is back, classic stuff. It isnt wimby yet pal!!

Quiet!

Stella wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:My main argument for why i would pick woods over nicklaus(just)

Me to. Plus Woods made the game more popular with us youngsters

Jack may have but hey, I don't know.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"Being a tennis fan I like to challenge the un-informed comments and see just how you quantify talent because you couldn't even name a top player that Graf faced while making your commen"


Lol legend is back, classic stuff. It isnt wimby yet pal!!

Quiet!

i will give you one as well

Martina clearly!

mystiroakey wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"Being a tennis fan I like to challenge the un-informed comments and see just how you quantify talent because you couldn't even name a top player that Graf faced while making your commen"


Lol legend is back, classic stuff. It isnt wimby yet pal!!

Quiet!

i will give you one as well

Ah as they are being given out, come here you

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Diggers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Diggers wrote:More singles slams and the calendar grad slam for Graf. Id also argue that further into the Open era and the professional game there was a greater depth of talent for Graf to play against, though Martina had Evert to contend with.

Martina played in the Open Era.

So who is the talent that Graf played against?

I said depth of talent, do you want me to list the merits of every single woman who played in Navratilovas ere compared to Grafs ?

Why yes. Being a tennis fan I like to challenge the un-informed comments and see just how you quantify talent because you couldn't even name a top player that Graf faced while making your comment.

I clearly didnt try to name a top player that Graf faced in her career....because...and try and understand what Im trying to say here...Im talking about the depth of talents in the fields they faced. Thats why I highlighted that Navratilova had Evert to contend with and didnt list a similar rival for Graf, Seles would be an option but they clearly never met as many times as Martina and Chris.
But again...that wasnt the point I was making.

I am kinda hoping we will get a woods v fed .tennis v golf.. It could get militant.. but untill then

Tino, thanks mate, glad you enjoyed it.

Must admit that, whilst Bradman is the clear winner of this group, I feel sorry to see the great Harry Greb cast by the wayside.

Named 'The Human Windmill' - a moniker taken up by perhaps the finest poster to have graced this forum - his record and feats inside a boxing ring really are second to none. As Tino mentioned, however, the lack of footage and reliance upon newspaper reports from the time mean that, in reality, he stands next to no chance. He wasn't the greatest sportsman of all time, but I suspect he belongs a lot higher up the list than many people here will realise.

Bradman for me, though. For one man to be so far ahead of the next greatest in his sport (almost twice as good) defies belief. A true phenomenon, the like of which we will never see again.

Fists of Fury wrote: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.

Well when you put it like that Fists.

I'll vote for Bradman.

You're a wise man, IG.

Diggers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Diggers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Diggers wrote:More singles slams and the calendar grad slam for Graf. Id also argue that further into the Open era and the professional game there was a greater depth of talent for Graf to play against, though Martina had Evert to contend with.

Martina played in the Open Era.

So who is the talent that Graf played against?

I said depth of talent, do you want me to list the merits of every single woman who played in Navratilovas ere compared to Grafs ?

Why yes. Being a tennis fan I like to challenge the un-informed comments and see just how you quantify talent because you couldn't even name a top player that Graf faced while making your comment.

I clearly didnt try to name a top player that Graf faced in her career....because...and try and understand what Im trying to say here...Im talking about the depth of talents in the fields they faced. Thats why I highlighted that Navratilova had Evert to contend with and didnt list a similar rival for Graf, Seles would be an option but they clearly never met as many times as Martina and Chris.
But again...that wasnt the point I was making.

Let me point that Martina was winning singles slams with wooden/graphite/steel racquets. With white and yellow balls. Her ability to transfer her talent through advances in the game is something un-matched. She competed against Evert, Austin and Mandlikova. Even when she was at the end of her singles career she was still competing against Graf, Seles, Sabbatini. The demonstration of any great talent is the ability to adapt and no-one in the game has shown or demonstrated this better than Navratilova.

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote: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.

Well when you put it like that Fists.

I'll vote for Bradman.

I bet I can eat a cucumber sandwich and lean on my bat as well as Bradman.

pretty simple one this, Bradman is my favourite for the overall title, the extent to which he dominated cricket is simply astonishing.

Navratilova my second choice from this group, so hope they'll both progress.

Greb, fine boxer though he was, isn't in the same league as those two. Neither is Zidane.

super_realist wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote: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.

Well when you put it like that Fists.

I'll vote for Bradman.

I bet I can eat a cucumber sandwich and lean on my bat as well as Bradman.

Well why dont you go an eat a cucumber sandwich and lean on a bat for england and earn £300000 a year rather than sitting n your arse and typing nonsense?

Fists of Fury wrote:Tino, thanks mate, glad you enjoyed it.

Must admit that, whilst Bradman is the clear winner of this group, I feel sorry to see the great Harry Greb cast by the wayside.

Named 'The Human Windmill' - a moniker taken up by perhaps the finest poster to have graced this forum - his record and feats inside a boxing ring really are second to none. As Tino mentioned, however, the lack of footage and reliance upon newspaper reports from the time mean that, in reality, he stands next to no chance. He wasn't the greatest sportsman of all time, but I suspect he belongs a lot higher up the list than many people here will realise.

Bradman for me, though. For one man to be so far ahead of the next greatest in his sport (almost twice as good) defies belief. A true phenomenon, the like of which we will never see again.

Fists - that very much reflects my own earlier thoughts and post.

Whilst you have served The Don deservedly well, both Harry Greb and our own much missed Windy deserved better.

Zidane and Navratilova are mere make weights, like the last two school kids to be picked for a lunchtime kickabout.

As much as people are making a decent case for Bradman, I don't think the general public will stand for a parochial, un-athletic, colonial sport and for a sportsman who last competed in 1949, before most of us were even alive.
Great as he might have been.

super_realist wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote: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.

Well when you put it like that Fists.

I'll vote for Bradman.

I bet I can eat a cucumber sandwich and lean on my bat as well as Bradman.

No Cheese?

super_realist wrote:

I bet I can eat a cucumber sandwich and lean on my bat as well as Bradman.

Are you going to make this point over and over and over and over and over.......

We get it, you don't think cricket a sport. You've made that clear at least 800 times now. Lots of people do though and for the purposes of this very enjoyable exercise, it is a worthwhile addition.

super_realist wrote:As much as people are making a decent case for Bradman, I don't think the general public will stand for a parochial, un-athletic, colonial sport and for a sportsman who last competed in 1949, before most of us were even alive.
Great as he might have been.

Current votes suggest otherwise.

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.

Super realist, you are becoming more irksome by the day.

We had the Prawn Sandwich brigade, now we have the Cucumber Sandwich brigade. Step forward 606V2 Cricket section

Fists of Fury wrote:Super realist, you are becoming more irksome by the day.

He should be in an adidas ad - Impossible is nothing

guildfordbat wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Tino, thanks mate, glad you enjoyed it.

Must admit that, whilst Bradman is the clear winner of this group, I feel sorry to see the great Harry Greb cast by the wayside.

Named 'The Human Windmill' - a moniker taken up by perhaps the finest poster to have graced this forum - his record and feats inside a boxing ring really are second to none. As Tino mentioned, however, the lack of footage and reliance upon newspaper reports from the time mean that, in reality, he stands next to no chance. He wasn't the greatest sportsman of all time, but I suspect he belongs a lot higher up the list than many people here will realise.

Bradman for me, though. For one man to be so far ahead of the next greatest in his sport (almost twice as good) defies belief. A true phenomenon, the like of which we will never see again.

Fists - that very much reflects my own earlier thoughts and post.

Whilst you have served The Don deservedly well, both Harry Greb and our own much missed Windy deserved better.

Zidane and Navratilova are mere make weights, like the last two school kids to be picked for a lunchtime kickabout.

My apologies, Guildford, I missed your earlier post. Thanks for that.

It is a shame indeed that Windy isn't about to put forward the case for Greb. He was a persuasive old sod.

If leaning on a bat is all that is required, then I'm amazed the ECB haven't recruited you, super_realist.

After all, you're as thick as two short planks, you could serve both batsmen simultaneously.

Gotta love SR surely.. But the fact is he doesnt have the style or grace to eat a cucumber sandwich the way Sir DON could..

guildfordbat wrote:

super_realist wrote:As much as people are making a decent case for Bradman, I don't think the general public will stand for a parochial, un-athletic, colonial sport and for a sportsman who last competed in 1949, before most of us were even alive.
Great as he might have been.

Current votes suggest otherwise.

Obviously the cricket fans will vote for him in a pool of four, I agree he's a Cricket GOAT, can't see him getting it overall though, due to the OVERALL opinion of Cricket

Oooh is that what the 99.94 average referred to? The number he could dispatch in one lunch interval?

Fists of Fury wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Tino, thanks mate, glad you enjoyed it.

Must admit that, whilst Bradman is the clear winner of this group, I feel sorry to see the great Harry Greb cast by the wayside.

Named 'The Human Windmill' - a moniker taken up by perhaps the finest poster to have graced this forum - his record and feats inside a boxing ring really are second to none. As Tino mentioned, however, the lack of footage and reliance upon newspaper reports from the time mean that, in reality, he stands next to no chance. He wasn't the greatest sportsman of all time, but I suspect he belongs a lot higher up the list than many people here will realise.

Bradman for me, though. For one man to be so far ahead of the next greatest in his sport (almost twice as good) defies belief. A true phenomenon, the like of which we will never see again.

Fists - that very much reflects my own earlier thoughts and post.

Whilst you have served The Don deservedly well, both Harry Greb and our own much missed Windy deserved better.

Zidane and Navratilova are mere make weights, like the last two school kids to be picked for a lunchtime kickabout.

My apologies, Guildford, I missed your earlier post. Thanks for that.

It is a shame indeed that Windy isn't about to put forward the case for Greb. He was a persuasive old sod.

Mind the windows Tino wrote:Even if the dearly missed Windy was around I doubt even he could have made a persuasive enough case for Harry coming through this one.

He was persuasive, Fists, but I think even this one would have been beyond him!

I agree, Tino, but he would have put up a bloody good fight. He had a way with words.

never understood cucumber sandwiches anyway..

My mum used to also put tinned salmon in them.. Still not great though.

I voted for Bradman. He's the Don.

Navratilova would have gotten my vote in either Group 1 or Group 2, shame she was pitted against Bradman.

I never rated Zidane as highly as everyone else. I never saw him have an outstanding game, never saw him turn a game around, never saw much to his game that warranted such praise. I saw him play about 70-80 times. He could score a great goal from time to time, but so can Peter Crouch. He just wasn't the new coming of Platini that people said he was.

And until today I'd never heard of Harry Greb, so no matter his story, he had no chance of getting my vote.

I think it's a real shame that we're doing this without all four names being championed btw

Fists of Fury wrote:If leaning on a bat is all that is required, then I'm amazed the ECB haven't recruited you, super_realist.

After all, you're as thick as two short planks, you could serve both batsmen simultaneously.

Apparently two short planks have just complained to the mods ....

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.

Zidane was class but I would have to put Pele, Maradona and Messi above him as Footballers.

I will admit to falling for that aussie fosters gold advert though. The one where the bloke said to the english posh dudes, your a clever man- save money on the food and spend it all on gold..

Anyway cut the story short I have sampled the fosters gold. And although its still pretty tasteless stuff- not bad on a warm day..

I am clearly losing the plot here.. Off to do some work..

Up The BRADMAN>>>

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.

Are there any sports you actually like?

guildfordbat wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:If leaning on a bat is all that is required, then I'm amazed the ECB haven't recruited you, super_realist.

After all, you're as thick as two short planks, you could serve both batsmen simultaneously.

Apparently two short planks have just complained to the mods ....

What? Who has?

Have they, Guildford? I'm unaware.

super_realist wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:If leaning on a bat is all that is required, then I'm amazed the ECB haven't recruited you, super_realist.

After all, you're as thick as two short planks, you could serve both batsmen simultaneously.

Apparently two short planks have just complained to the mods ....

What? Who has?

Nobody as far as I know, SR.

Just a bit of chain pulling, anyway, following your tedious cucumber sandwich game

super_realist wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote: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.

Well when you put it like that Fists.

I'll vote for Bradman.

I bet I can eat a cucumber sandwich and lean on my bat as well as Bradman.

I could probably put up a tent or wear a hat as well as Sonny Liston. What's your point?

Ah but you can't dispatch a man as quickly as onetwo, IG.

Voted for Bradman. His amazing record speaks for itself, yes it was a long time ago but that is/was not his fault. He marmalised the best opposition of the day in a way no-one else even got close to.

Navratilova unlucky to be in this group as her record is great but not as far ahead of her peers as Don.

Greb sounds good but can't be persuaded without a full championing of him.

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.

True fists but you've gotta admit - onetwo has got styleeeeeeeeeeeeee

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.

It is also scary when you consider that Bradman arguably missed his prime years due to the onset of war. A spectacular record could have been even more so.

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 featured 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.

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.

Zidane's performance against Brazil in the QF of the 06 World Cup is as good an individual performance as I have seen (you have to bare in mind I started watching football ca 96 or so). He was simply stunning that day.