v2 G.O.A.T Round 2 Match 8

Yesterday’s first match up was one of the most routine victories we’ve seen with Jesse Owen defeating Ayrton Senna with ease to cruise into the last 16.

Joining Owen in round 2 is Borg who defeated both Gareth Edwards and the wildcard LeBron James who both leave the tournament at this stage

Today's first match up will see Shane Warne take on Sir Steve Redgrave

Please vote for the participant you believe has achieved the most in sport

Below are the previous round 1 articles written by forum members

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Steve Redgrave- Rowing- Championed by ChequeredJersey

One of the key features, in my opinion, for the GOAT in all sports is that a candidate must transcend his sport and attain significance and influence in the lives of people beyond the hard-core sporting fan-base. They should also attain dominance within their own sport. Many sportsmen (this term includes women too) are talented, some enough that they stand out above their peers. Far fewer stand out across the eras of a sport. Of these, even fewer are household names, celebrities or national icons especially in the ‘less popular sports’. Other sportsmen garner fame and celebrity status, but few of these can say they achieved unique accomplishments for sporting reasons. Those that fit into both categories and also manage to be uniquely great across a type of sport, not merely their own specialty, are incredibly rare. Sir Steven Geoffrey Redgrave, CBE, deputy lieutenant, is one of these. I will endeavour to show how in this article. Sorry that it’s a bit long, I got carried away…

If you ask a member of the British public to name an Olympian, chances are Redgrave will be near the top of the list. If you ask them to name a rower, I’d be amazed if he weren’t. He remains the only person to win 5 Gold Olympic Medals in 5 consecutive games in an endurance sport (as well as a solitary Bronze) and he adds 9 Gold, 2 Silver and 1 Bronze World Championship Medals from 1986-99 to that tally. He won his first Gold at age 22 and his last at 38, 16 years of Olympic domination in a sport that is based on physical strength and fitness, attributes that for a man peak in one’s mid-twenties. During the majority of that time, Redgrave’s crews were expected to win every race they entered and in a sport that has a number of strong competitive nations and is subject to conditions and how the crew clicks and other variables they nearly did win every race for nearly 20 years.

Non-internationally, he won different categories at Henley Royal Regatta, the premier sprint racing rowing race in the world, 21 times, the last one at age 39. These events ranged from sweep (one bladed) to scull (two oars) and from singles on his own to coxed 4s with a number of partners, as were his Olympic medals. The only constant was Redgrave. He also represented England in the 1986 Commonwealth games where he won 3 Golds in different races. I don’t know how many times he won the premier Head (long distance) racing event in the world, the Head of the River Race on the
Thames, but he certainly did win it with Leander VIII and IV several times as well as his sprint victories listed here.

Most rowers specialise at rowing on one side of the boat – Bowside (starboard, or the right side of the boat from the cox’ point of view) or Strokeside (port). As well as sculling with 2 oars, Redgrave rowed both Bow and Strokeside and won Olympic Gold on both sides, testament to his technical proficiency (something very underappreciated by lay people regarding rowing) not just his strength. He was also renowned as a tactician and made the calls in his coxless crews and knew exactly when to wait and when to push another crew.

The only thing missing from his portfolio is a Boat Race victory, due to ineligibility.
He was also World indoor rowing champion (on a ergometric rowing machine) in 1990 and was British bobsleighing Champion and has run several London Marathons for charity. He did all of this with Ulcerative Colitis and Diabetes Mellitus Type 1, both chronic and debilitating diseases with severe health effects, both worse under the stress of severe physical exertion which rowing training entails more than most existent activities.

These are his considerable achievements within sport. Related to these, he has been BBC Sports Personality of the Year, won a Knighthood and a CBE from the Queen, a special pin from the Olympic Committee for winning 5 Golds in consecutive Games, a Thomas Keller Medal from the International Rowing Federation for his Outstanding International Career, has Carried the Olympic Torch in the Olympic Stadium at 2012 London, been the UK’s Olympic Flag bearer in 1992 and ’96, won Celebrity Gladiators, a BBC Sports Lifetime Achievement Award. He has set up rowing academies in India, raised millions of pounds for Charity, is an ambassador for Fairtrade and Founder and President of the Steve Redgrave Trust, and the vice-president of Diabetes UK and involved in many other charities. He is now Sports Legacy Champion and a Member of Sports Relief’s Steering Committee. The President of British Rowing, a Steward of Henley Royal Regatta and Vice President of the British Olympic Association and now a decade after his retirement is still the face of Rowing.

Since his retirement he has done so much for Sport and charity. He is a British legend who represents his country now as an ambassador. He epitomises determination, pushing oneself beyond the limit and the honour of representing one’s country. Inside his sport he has been a master and a mentor and outside of it a Champion for all the qualities we get from playing sport and all the emotion we suffer through spectating it. He is surely the inspiration for so many rowers, so many British sportspeople across every sport. He has touched many lives through the greatest of his achievements, people crying with him and for him. For all this, I propose Sir Steve Redgrave as the GOAT.

Voted for Steven Redgrave - 5 consecutive Olympic Golds, 3 Commonwealth Golds and 9 World Championship Golds. All over the stretch of 16 years!

Warne was a great bowler, no doubt but is, imo, a little fortunate to be in the 64, plus Redgrave is one of my personal hero's and wins this one.

Redgrave - both are champions, but the not strictly relevant tie-breaker is the difference between their respective characters. Redgrave is a solid bloke, so far as we can see; Warne's ethics, particularly as they affect women, are a bit....elastic. Together with his illegal substance-related suspension, I don't see why he should progress at the expense of someone who remained at the top of their sport for even longer than himself.

I have voted Redgrave which was an easy choice vs Warne who is a great bowler but not as strong a candidate as Bradman.

Redgrave is a true inspiration, overcoming diabetes to win his 5th Gold Medal. He was the only reliable British gold medal hope in the days when 5 Golds per games was considered an amazing achievement so was clearly excellent in spite of a very poor system.

Has to be Redgrave, for me.

Warne a truly magnificent player, of course, and I don't tend to deduct him too many points for his misdemeanours away from the field, but I do tend to think that McGrath was THE most important player in helping Australia totally dominate both test and one day cricket for well over a decade, rather than the bleach-blonde Melbournian. And while Warne's superior batting and slip fielding may edge him ahead of Murali as an all-round player, that tends to matter little when you're playing in a side which can boast a batting line up of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, the Waugh twins, Gilchrist, Martyn, Hussey etc; as such, I generally see Warne purely as a bowler and, to my mind, he's therefore behind the brilliant Sri Lankan as the premier slow bowler of his time.

Warne managed fifteen years at the very top in cricket, Redgrave managed sixteen in rowing and there's no doubt in my mind which is the far superior feat of longevity; to claim gold in five consecutive Olympics in a sport which requires such incredible lung capacity, upper body strength and conditioning is remarkable, to say the very least.

Redgrave by a fairly comfortable margin, in my eyes.

Sir Steve Redgrave? Are they giving knighthoods to boat people now?

Actually he wins this round fairly comfortably.

Warne in danger of being out for 0

CJ has provided an excellent summary of Sir Steve's career, to which I'd only add two points, which I think serve to illustrate his dominance of the sport.

The first is to elaborate on that "solitary bronze". Rowing is an endurance sport. In Olympic competition, rowers will row three or four 2,000m races of 6-7 minutes. Completing a single stroke has been compared to lifting a 40 or 50kg weight from below your feet to your chest, and rowers will complete around 250 strokes in each race. Rowing requires both immense strength and cardiovascular fitness that only cross-country skiers get close to. When Redgrave and Holmes competed in both the coxed and coxless pairs in 1988, it was an unprecedented event with no real equivalent in another sport. The closest I can think of in terms of effort and intensity might be to compete in both the 1,500m and 3,000m steeplechase. To win medals in both events - even though one wasn't a gold - was an unparalleled achievement.

When asked after the 92 Olympics how he and Pinsent were going to approach the next Olympic cycle, they declared that they were going to beat everyone for the next 4 years so that they would scare their most serious competition into competing in different events. Which they duly did, going unbeaten in all competitions between 1992 and 1996. Given the margins in top level rowing, where a minor illness or a few missed training sessions can often make the difference between winning and losing, that level of dominance is again unprecedented.

Sir Chris Hoy may now have won more gold medals, but in cycling it is common for a top competitor to enter multiple events in one Olympics. In rowing, you have to do it the hard way: one shot every four years. Redgrave dominated his sport for sixteen years in a way that few sportsmen in any field have ever done.

I wouldnt have Redgrave in my 64 to be honest. He has been part of some great medal winning boats and is obviously a rowing great but I dont think he has ever been the best rower in the world at any given time.
Lets face it in tennis we had a mix of the top men and women, same in track and field, yet there are women who have medalled more than Redgrave at Olympics who the vast majority of people on here...including me I hasten to add.....wouldnt even know the name of or make a top 10000 on peoples lists.
Ill go for Warne of the basis of him being the greatest spinner ever in a far more popular sport.

For me, Warne had an X-Factor as a bowler that has rarely if ever been equalled - OK, Murali's career statistics suggest he was the better slow bowler, but had the advantages of playing more cricket in spin-friendly conditions and being the go to guy for his side, so got more opportunities to bowl at tail enders, whereas Warne was playing with another all time great (McGrath) and two other world class quick bowlers (Gillespie and Lee).
Warne could simply make a batsman look foolish in a way that no-one else I've seen could - the 'ball of the Century' to Gatting, doing something very similar to Kallis, bowling Gooch behind his legs, spinning one straight across Strauss in the Ashes 05.

Having said all that, for me the later stages of this competition should only include one cricketer, and that's The Don.

As for Redgrave - probably the finest sportsman this country has ever produced. Fantastic longevity and consistency, even ignoring the health issues that would normally have undermined someone participating in such a physical sport.

I feel like a traitor- but i had to go for warne!!

I'm in for Warne.

I think his talents in his field surpass the talents of Redgrave in his field (well, river or lake). My vote for Redgrave, whilst on the cards for a while, would have been based on patriotism rather than honest opinion. So while I doubt Warne can win today I have gone for him. Massive, massive respect for Sir Steve and his achievements though.

very tricky this one for me

think warne is the best spin bowler ever, although he was in one of the greatest test teams of all time though. but he beats murali in the field and batting and didnt have the advantage of playing on the sub continent spinning tracks as much as murali did or uncovered pitches like the older generation did

redgrave one of our greatest olympians, but just like warne he couldnt have done it all on his own he had some great partners to help him, the other factor would be while rowing is a very very tough sport its hardly particpated world wide, meaning that to become the greatest rower is probably easier than the greatest spin bowler, would also say that warne has a much deeper history pool to contend with, i doubt many of us know of any rowers before redgrave and perhaps were slighty biased in his rowing achievements because he did them for us, i doubt many would be praising over a rower as much if he werent british

so ive gone for warne, just though......

Bowling leg-spin is EASILY the hardest prospect on sport. To even make it professionally a leggie difficult.
I play cricket & I have done some rowing in adventure triathlons, I cannot overstate how difficult leggies are to bowl.
Case in point, after Warne and Kumble look at the stats of current leggies. You try bowling from the back of your hand for 20 years. Truly, Warne is a genius in every sense

Argh! Tough bracket! I have to go Redgrave though, 5 consecutive in an endurance sport is something else

Went with Shane Warne, he is a legend in his sport, no much clue about the other guy.

Very tough, but Redgrave wins it for me.

Diggers wrote:I wouldnt have Redgrave in my 64 to be honest. He has been part of some great medal winning boats and is obviously a rowing great but I dont think he has ever been the best rower in the world at any given time.
Lets face it in tennis we had a mix of the top men and women, same in track and field, yet there are women who have medalled more than Redgrave at Olympics who the vast majority of people on here...including me I hasten to add.....wouldnt even know the name of or make a top 10000 on peoples lists.
Ill go for Warne of the basis of him being the greatest spinner ever in a far more popular sport.

It depends what you mean by "best rower in the world". Was he the most technically gifted rower in the world? No. Could anyone in the world move a boat faster than him? After 1996, yes - by that time Pinsent was the most powerful rower in the boat. But between 1984 and 1996, there was no-one to touch Redgrave. Ask Jurgen Grobler. To restate a point I made earlier: between 1992 and 1996, Pinsent and Redgrave won every race they entered, having previously predicted that they would. There were only two guys in that boat, and they and their coach would both acknowledge that Redgrave was the prime motive force. He won 4 golds at the Olympics in 2-man boats, with three different partners.

Yes, there are athletes who have won more medals than Redgrave who wouldn't make a Greatest of All Time. But they haven't done it in an endurance sport and won 6 medals, 5 of them gold, across 5 separate Olympics and 16 years.

As for the popularity of the event, is it really a valid criterion for greatness?

Let's take an extreme example. Mountaineering is inherently impossible as a spectator sport (though there are lots of participants). Reinhold Messner is unquestionably the greatest mountaineer of all time - the first man to climb Everest without oxygen (and - just to prove the point - solo it without oxygen), to climb all 14 8,000m peaks, to climb the Seven Summits. His achievements knock those of most of the people on this list into a cocked hat, Warne included.

I would say that popularity is only a threshold criterion for excellence if it materially reduces the level of competition that a sportsman faces. Had I invented the sport of goodminton twenty years ago and been undefeated world champion at seven weight divisions since then, mainly because no-one else plays it, I would have no claim to be the Greatest Of All Time. Rowing is one of the most competitive sports in the world - even more so because national coaches constantly juggle their squads to maximise their chances of winning medals. In 2000, Redgrave, Pinsent, Foster and Cracknell had to beat the Australian "Oarsome Foursome" that had won Gold in the event in 92 and 96 and came within a canvas of doing so in 2000.

the level of competition that redgrave faced was from a smaller population than Warne probably unless someone can convince me otherwise ...

The problem with this whole G.O.A.T. thing is that there appears to be a wide variation in the definition of great.

I dont think Shane Warne is the greatest cricketer in/From Victoria let alone the World.

How can people vote for some one who has been banned from his sport for not only testing positive for a banned substance but moreover on another occasion for being in breach of the spirit of the game???

I dont know auckland maybe cause we are brits(on the whole) that love cricket and admire his skillz against us!!

However You are a Kiwi that possibly looks at him very differently!!

Banned drugs and all that in cricket dont seem to bother most or me-

I totally believe he took the diuretic for fluid loss.. rather than to mask a PED- or to possibly MASK something recreational!!

Anyway none of that is gonna aid his performance..even if he was masking a PED!



Jeas the amount of cricketrs in those days and these days that are taking hardcore pain killers just to perform is very high..
I think its hypocrsy to ban duretics as its no worse than that(even if it is banned more due to it masking other PED's)

yellowgoatboy wrote:the level of competition that redgrave faced was from a smaller population than Warne probably unless someone can convince me otherwise ...

That's effectively arguing that the only valid measure of greatness is level of participation - Warne must be greater because his sport has more participants. But if you follow that line of argument, then logically you only have two options. Either the G.O.A.T. has to come from the sport with the most participants, or you have to impose some kind of cut-off beyond which a sport's greatest exponent can be a candidate for greatness. Let's ignore the cut-off route, because it's arbitrary.

So, the other option is that the G.O.A.T. must come from the sport with the highest participation. That would, by most reckoning, be angling, so your answer is probably Heather Michelle Harkavy. No, I hadn't heard of her either.

Perhaps you don't regard angling as a sport. In that case, based on Sport UK participation figures, the G.O.A.T. must come from swimming, so the answer is Michael Phelps and we can all stop arguing.

Actually, Phelps is a pretty good contender - but should we automatically install him just because he's the best exponent of the most popular sport? He's more Olympic medals than anyone else, but in a (at his distances) a non-endurance sport where it's relatively common to compete in multiple events, his success was driven by his skill at the turn [1] and his career spanned 3 Olympiads - 8 years, or only half that of Redgrave. Endurance vs sprint, intensity of medals vs longevity of competition - debating the relative merits of those differences is what makes this interesting. Reducing it to "my sport's bigger than your sport" renders the debate pointless.

[1] "The 5th stroke" - the one element that is common to all swimming disciplines is the underwater section at the start and turns. If you look closely at Phelps's races, he's often not the fastest swimmer on the surface of the pool, but makes huge gains at every turn.

PEDs in cricket!!!! what do they do make you spin it more?! cricket is one of the least physical sports out of the major ones. its alot more about technique and mental strength. what next phil taylor on PEDS

Poorfour wrote:

yellowgoatboy wrote:the level of competition that redgrave faced was from a smaller population than Warne probably unless someone can convince me otherwise ...

That's effectively arguing that the only valid measure of greatness is level of participation - Warne must be greater because his sport has more participants. But if you follow that line of argument, then logically you only have two options. Either the G.O.A.T. has to come from the sport with the most participants, or you have to impose some kind of cut-off beyond which a sport's greatest exponent can be a candidate for greatness. Let's ignore the cut-off route, because it's arbitrary.

So, the other option is that the G.O.A.T. must come from the sport with the highest participation. That would, by most reckoning, be angling, so your answer is probably Heather Michelle Harkavy. No, I hadn't heard of her either.

Perhaps you don't regard angling as a sport. In that case, based on Sport UK participation figures, the G.O.A.T. must come from swimming, so the answer is Michael Phelps and we can all stop arguing.

Actually, Phelps is a pretty good contender - but should we automatically install him just because he's the best exponent of the most popular sport? He's more Olympic medals than anyone else, but in a (at his distances) a non-endurance sport where it's relatively common to compete in multiple events, his success was driven by his skill at the turn [1] and his career spanned 3 Olympiads - 8 years, or only half that of Redgrave. Endurance vs sprint, intensity of medals vs longevity of competition - debating the relative merits of those differences is what makes this interesting. Reducing it to "my sport's bigger than your sport" renders the debate pointless.

[1] "The 5th stroke" - the one element that is common to all swimming disciplines is the underwater section at the start and turns. If you look closely at Phelps's races, he's often not the fastest swimmer on the surface of the pool, but makes huge gains at every turn.

I think he probably means competitive participation otherwise the GOAT would have to be one of those waddling Olympic walkers

Warne plays a sport with multiple specialist position in which he isn't the best Spinner of his era or even the best Australian bowler, never mind player, in the team in which he participated. No way he gets close to Redgrave. And as I've said greatness needs to transcend sport a d Redgrave did that and Warne, in my view, cannot be said to have

mystir

If I remember correctly what Warne did was take the substance(steroi) to aid muscle growth and assist in his rehab of the shoulder injury...

Whether its recoverig from an injury or being taken during the off season to supplment muscle growth , it still gives an unfair advantage and thats the very reason why its a banned substance......But to blame your mother????

ChequeredJersey wrote:Warne plays a sport with multiple specialist position in which he isn't the best Spinner of his era or even the best Australian bowler, never mind player, in the team in which he participated. No way he gets close to Redgrave. And as I've said greatness needs to transcend sport a d Redgrave did that and Warne, in my view, cannot be said to have

Can someone explain to me how Redgrave has transcended ? He's famous...in the UK...like all successful sportsmen. He's no global icon, Warne is far more of an iconic figure and not just in Australia.
This is just nationalistic jingoism again I'm afraid.

"That's effectively arguing that the only valid measure of greatness is level of participation"




not really- just that there is better odds that the sportsman is greater. For my money it has to come in to consideration but it certainly isnt and shouldnt be the only measure we determine sportsmen on..

"If I remember correctly what Warne did was take the substance(steroi) to aid muscle growth and assist in his rehab of the shoulder injury"

Oh right..

well he had an injury and i would rather him get better and play.. Is trying to fix the problem quickly morally worse that taking injection pain killers every time you step on the field..

Diggers wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Warne plays a sport with multiple specialist position in which he isn't the best Spinner of his era or even the best Australian bowler, never mind player, in the team in which he participated. No way he gets close to Redgrave. And as I've said greatness needs to transcend sport a d Redgrave did that and Warne, in my view, cannot be said to have

Can someone explain to me how Redgrave has transcended ? He's famous...in the UK...like all successful sportsmen. He's no global icon, Warne is far more of an iconic figure and not just in Australia.
This is just nationalistic jingoism again I'm afraid.

Diggers, so you didnt read my post then.., So I'll put it another way, Redgrave (Who I also have never heard of before last week)wins by default over Shane Warne, Not because I have any issues with Aussies (national Jingoism) because for their size the Aussies produce a lot of the Worlds top sportmen/women in a very wide variety of sports. But Shane Warne ticks a number of the wrong boxes, Plus can anyone honestly say he is the greatest cricketer, let alone spotsman to come out of Australia?

Aucks you didnt even now who Messi is!!

(not having a pop at you btw)

Just making a point!!

.....

I think many would say Warne is the best ever leg spinner- therefore by default could be argued the greatest cricketer! No question

Mystir,

having a needle is merely concealing the pain for an hour or so, it is not adding to the body'satural growth or performance. lets say.

I have no problem with him recovering from an injury by normal body processes, but adding muscle to assist him to resume training and beat the rehab process gives him an unfair advantage.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Diggers wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Warne plays a sport with multiple specialist position in which he isn't the best Spinner of his era or even the best Australian bowler, never mind player, in the team in which he participated. No way he gets close to Redgrave. And as I've said greatness needs to transcend sport a d Redgrave did that and Warne, in my view, cannot be said to have

Can someone explain to me how Redgrave has transcended ? He's famous...in the UK...like all successful sportsmen. He's no global icon, Warne is far more of an iconic figure and not just in Australia.
This is just nationalistic jingoism again I'm afraid.

Diggers, so you didnt read my post then.., So I'll put it another way, Redgrave (Who I also have never heard of before last week)wins by default over Shane Warne, Not because I have any issues with Aussies (national Jingoism) because for their size the Aussies produce a lot of the Worlds top sportmen/women in a very wide variety of sports. But Shane Warne ticks a number of the wrong boxes, Plus can anyone honestly say he is the greatest cricketer, let alone spotsman to come out of Australia?

I asked why Redgrave's transcended, your post didn't answer that.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Mystir,

having a needle is merely concealing the pain for an hour or so, it is not adding to the body'satural growth or performance. lets say.

I have no problem with him recovering from an injury by normal body processes, but adding muscle to assist him to resume training and beat the rehab process gives him an unfair advantage.

i dont really agree tbh.. We are given steroids to recover by our GP's in the non pro sporting world..

I think in recovery it should be OK to use drugs to get you back on track and earning again! and give the world what we want- The best players playing

However it is aganist the sporting laws- so i have to conceade there

Mystir

youre right I didnt know who Messi was ( a week ago), nor Redgrave, and people are suggesting that they are two of the greatest 62 sportspeople in the World. How dumb am I???

Plus no arguement from me that Warne isnt the best leg spinner, i think he is but to be greatest in your whole sport let alone all sports requires a much higher standard of achievement in your sport but also contribution to your sport.

Diggers

To put it simply Warne lets himself down and that how Redgrave surpasses him. but he is an accomplished texter.

redgrave as a human being is up there 100%..

Warne is a bit of a geezer lioke!

Who is the best sportsman - dunno.. But rowing is a FRINGE sport and as diggers has pointed out he is only part of a team..

Redgraves personal acheivments however far surpass warnes for me.. But i have to pick Warne due to his skill level in a very high particpation sport!

Mystir

All competitive sportsmen at some stage suffer some forms of injury, however if you use that injury as an excuse (opportunity) to use steroids then all you are doing is using the opprtunity of the injury to gain an unfair advantage.

Was it even proved he took steroids!

have you got a link..

I read up that he was only caught taking dureitcs!?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Diggers

To put it simply Warne lets himself down and that how Redgrave surpasses him. but he is an accomplished texter.

You are just comparing the two , that's not what I'm after. In specifically asking why people think Redgrave has transcended, I just don't see it at all. It's not helped by the fact that he is a charisma free zone.

Diggers

Were you a rower?

Nope, only in the gym.

Mystir

No, I dont have a link I'm going off memory when it happened. But it must have some degree of gravity if it resulted in a years ban..I saw dureitics also when I just did a quick google.

Diggers wrote:Nope, only in the gym.

Ha, me to, well not now. It is a killer.

Back to Redgrave. Not sure he has transcended the sport, just shown absolute mental strength to overcome his illness issues and row at the top level for 20 odd years.

I reckon he is a brit GOAT but not a world one.

The guy is mentally a rock no doubt about that. Incredibly driven which I think he admits made him a bit of a nightmare when he was competing. He's clearly mellowed a fair bit now.

Rowing a minority sport? Well yes, but not compared with cricket. 10 nations compete at the highest cricketing level, of which 4 are from the Indian subcontinent and 1 is formed from a handful of Caribbean islands plus a remote outpost of South America. Then you've got the rest of the Old Empire stalwarts - Oz, NZ, SA and, when they're allowed, Zim. Add the mother country, and that's it.

No-one in continental North America or Latin America has a clue about cricket. In South East Asia, the same. North of the Sahara? Nope. And on we go - the Dutch and the irish dabble in it, but the rest of Europe couldn't care less. By all means use exclusivity as a stick with which to beat Redgrave, but understand that competition at the Olympics or rowing world championships extends far beyond eight or nine other nations. Apart from rugby league, cricket is just about the least global team sport out there, great game though it is.

Rowing is indeed widespread , but how many people do it or even follow it, not that many Id say , certainly not compared to cricket.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Rowing a minority sport? Well yes, but not compared with cricket. 10 nations compete at the highest cricketing level, of which 4 are from the Indian subcontinent and 1 is formed from a handful of Caribbean islands plus a remote outpost of South America. Then you've got the rest of the Old Empire stalwarts - Oz, NZ, SA and, when they're allowed, Zim. Add the mother country, and that's it.

No-one in continental North America or Latin America has a clue about cricket. In South East Asia, the same. North of the Sahara? Nope. And on we go - the Dutch and the irish dabble in it, but the rest of Europe couldn't care less. By all means use exclusivity as a stick with which to beat Redgrave, but understand that competition at the Olympics or rowing world championships extends far beyond eight or nine other nations. Apart from rugby league, cricket is just about the least global team sport out there, great game though it is.

yeas its not global- points been made by myself- however its the second most particpated sport out there

Take the subcontinent out of the equation and cricket's participation depends mostly on the good old UK, SA and Aus, which together, barely muster 100 million souls. I appreciate that India adds another billion, but it present srather a false picture of participation. If India had any ability at any other sport (hockey has long since disappeared to also-ran status), perhaps things might be different. The fact is that the country's sporting self-esteem is wrapped up in a single sport these days - just look at India's unutterably feeble performance at the Olympics, time after time, for confirmation.

I'm not sure that when ninety percent of the participants in a sport come from one country (and not the best at it, either), we can really call that sport either global or especially popular. Basically, cricket is held together by spectators in three countries - India, Australia and the UK. Without them, it dies as an international sport, as the mounds of empty seats at Tests show.

Your right- in crictkets case the particpation does not represent its true particpation level..

India only fields one team inetrnatoinally!! so many of them mght as well not be there.. We can use these same arguments to many US sports..

however Redgraves sport is truely a low level particpation sport even if its global reach is vast..

Now dont think i am devalueing his achevments because i am not!