v2 G.O.A.T Round 2 Match 10

Morning, all.

After a brief pause we're back in the thick of the v2 G.O.A.T action. Tuesday's round 8 match saw Sir Steve Redgrave dominate Shane Warne, the 5-time Olympic rowing champion of Great Britain taking a huge 70% of the votes and going through to the last sixteen at the expense of the Australian leg spinner, who had to be content with 30%.

Elsewhere, football legend Diego Maradona topped a very competitive 3-way group, advancing to the next stage with 46% of the votes cast in match 9 as two track and field giants, Edwin Moses and Daley Thompson, fell by the wayside with 35% and 19% respectively.

Match 10 sees Sir Donald Bradman from the world of cricket go head to head with Babe Ruth, the greatest name in baseball. We have a write up for Bradman, but none for Ruth, unfortunately. Please vote for which candidate you think has achieved the most or deserves to be remembered as the greater sportsman for whatever reason, and leave a comment as to why.

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

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"

That's a great write up from Fists which really brings out the dominance of Bradman both at the time and still today.

Ive just read a report this morning that doping is apparently rife in Australian sport. Im afraid I must therefore exclude Bradman as his achievements are now tainted.

well then this one is gonna be a breeze.

Arise SIr DON..

mystiroakey wrote:well then this one is gonna be a breeze.

Arise SIr DON..

What he said.

Nice wee nostalgia piece here talking about Bradman and Ruth actually meeting each other at a Yankees game in 1932 http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/310792.html

Bradman.

Not sure Ruth is the greatest player in his sport and Bradman most certainly is.

Yep, got to be Bradman.

Nice easy choice here. Bradman by an innings and 400 runs

Unfamiliarity with baseball amongst most posters will cost Babe this one. It would be a different result in the States, no doubt.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Unfamiliarity with baseball amongst most posters will cost Babe this one. It would be a different result in the States, no doubt.

Only if voters in the States paid no notiice to Bradman's record.

Shame it's a bit one sided after an excellent write up on Bradman and no counter on Ruth's behalf. I don't follow either sport but I can tell from the universal acclaim from the cricketing fraternity and others that Bradman is without peers and a contender for the overall GOAT so Bradman it is.

Ruth was as dominant in his era and sport as Bradman was in his. In addition to his outstanding feats with the bat - unchallenged for 40 years, and only then by someone with a ton more appearances, Ruth was an outstanding pitcher before concentrating on hitting. Imagine Bradman taking 150 test wickets before deciding to concentrate on making a century almost every time he went in to bat. That's what Ruth did in winning almost 100 games with the ball.

Bradman's 6996 runs and 29 centuries have been surpassed, as have Ruth's 714 homers and 2213 RBIs, but the rate at which each accomplished them has never been exceeded. Each also epitomised his country in his own time. As Julius observes, in the States, this would be the same one-way traffic as will be the case, in reverse, on this board.

In the interests of balance and fairness, I shall be voting for Ruth, still THE man in a sport every bit as global as cricket.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Bradman's 6996 runs and 29 centuries have been surpassed, as have Ruth's 714 homers and 2213 RBIs, but the rate at which each accomplished them has never been exceeded. .

The rate of Bradman's accomplishment is what is so impressive about him. You fail to mention it (though I appreciate you are championing Ruth here) but its that rate, specifically the 99.94 average that sets Bradman apart. That too will never be exceeded or even got close to.

Agreed, VTR. That's what I wrote. "The rate at which EACH accomplished them..."

Dammit! In my defence I am skim reading between putting together a boring presentation. Back to sleep for me!

Was Ruth's batting average (or the rate at which he acheived his homers and RBIs) almost double that of his rivals.
Bradman's average is.

When he retired, I don't think anyone else had managed 400 homers, Hoggy, although I may be wrong. With respect, 99.94 isn't "almost double" 60, either. Well, depends how elastic your maths is, I guess. Ruth's statistical dominance is /was pretty close.

When Bradman retired no-one else had scored 29 test centuries, and no-one else did for 30 odd years afterwards.
And, OK, Bradman's average is only around 70% better than the next best, not double. Is Babe Ruth's RBI record 70% better than his closest rival?

Courtesy of Wikipedia, and in interests of fairness (though I've already voted for the Don):

George Herman Ruth, Jr. (February 6, 1895 – August 16, 1948), best known as "Babe" Ruth and nicknamed "the Bambino" and "the Sultan of Swat", was an American baseball player who spent 22 seasons in Major League Baseball (MLB) playing for three teams (1914–1935). Known for his hitting brilliance, Ruth set career records in his time for home runs (714 since broken), slugging percentage (.690), runs batted in (RBI) (2,213 since broken), and on-base plus slugging (OPS) (1.164). Ruth originally entered the major leagues with the Boston Red Sox as a starting pitcher, but after he was sold to the New York Yankees in 1919, he converted to a full-time right fielder. He subsequently became one of the league's most prolific hitters and with his home run hitting prowess, he helped the Yankees win seven pennants and four World Series titles. Ruth retired in 1935 after a short stint with the Boston Braves, and the following year, he became one of the first five players to be elected into the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

Ruth was the first player to hit 60 home runs in one season (1927), a mark first eclipsed by Roger Maris in 1961 with 61. Ruth's lifetime record of 714 home runs stood until 1974 when it was surpassed by Hank Aaron. Unlike many power hitters, Ruth also hit for a high batting average: his .342 lifetime average is the tenth highest in baseball history, and in one season (1923) he batted .393, a Yankee record. Ruth dominated the era in which he played. He led the league in home runs during a season twelve times, slugging percentage and OPS thirteen times each, runs scored eight times, and RBIs six times. Each of those totals represents a modern record.

Ruth is credited with changing baseball itself. The popularity of the game exploded in the 1920s, largely due to his influence. Ruth ushered in the "live-ball era", as his big swing led to escalating home run totals that not only excited fans, but helped baseball evolve from a low-scoring, speed-dominated game to a high-scoring power game. He has since become regarded as one of the greatest sports heroes in American culture. Ruth's legendary power and charismatic personality made him a larger than life figure in the "Roaring Twenties", and according to ESPN, he was the first true American sports celebrity superstar whose fame transcended baseball. Off the field he was famous for his charity, but also was noted for his often reckless lifestyle.

Ruth has been named the greatest baseball player of all time in various surveys and rankings. In 1998, The Sporting News ranked him number one on the list of "Baseball's 100 Greatest Players". In 1999, baseball fans named Ruth to the Major League Baseball All-Century Team. In 1969, he was named baseball's Greatest Player Ever in a ballot commemorating the 100th anniversary of professional baseball. In 1993, the Associated Press reported that Muhammad Ali was tied with Babe Ruth as the most recognized athletes in America. In a 1999 ESPN poll, he was ranked as the second-greatest U.S. athlete of the century, behind Michael Jordan.

As far as all-time career "slugging percentages" go
1 Babe Ruth .6898
2 Ted Williams .6338
3 Lou Gehrig .6324
4 Jimmie Foxx .6093
5 Albert Pujols .6079
6 Barry Bonds .6069
7 Hank Greenberg .6050
8 Mark McGwire .5882
9 Manny Ramírez .5854
10 Joe DiMaggio .5788

And career OPS:
1.Babe Ruth, 1.1638
2.Ted Williams, 1.1155
3.Lou Gehrig, 1.0798
4.Barry Bonds, 1.0512
5.Jimmie Foxx, 1.0376
6.Albert Pujols, 1.0264
7.Hank Greenberg, 1.0169
8.Rogers Hornsby, 1.0103
9.Manny Ramírez, 0.9970
10.Mark McGwire, 0.9823

With baseball power hitters, it is extremely unusual to turn in a high average as well. Ruth not only stands third in home runs, achieved far faster than those ahead of him, but ninth in average, a combination that simply can't be approached by anyone else.

This is where you can't quite compare the stats, but suffice to say that overall, Ruth's hitting figures dominate everyone else's by some margin, bearing in mind numbers of at-bats. As I said before, that's without even starting on his pitching

I'm not trying to denigrate Bradman. I'm just pointing out that this idea that any comparison between him and Ruth is laughable is miles off the mark.

I think the problem Ruth has is I, like many others I imagine, are looking at those stats thinking: what?! Honestly I have no idea what those stats are let alone if they are miles better than others.

You'd have similar trying to convince most Americans why Bradman is so great. You can't just say 99.94 is way ahead of the next guy with 60 and think that would be enough to convince them. You'd then have to explain what that stat is, give it some context (maybe typical size of an innings) and so on.

VTR wrote:I think the problem Ruth has is I, like many others I imagine, are looking at those stats thinking: what?! Honestly I have no idea what those stats are let alone if they are miles better than others.

You'd have similar trying to convince most Americans why Bradman is so great. You can't just say 99.94 is way ahead of the next guy with 60 and think that would be enough to convince them. You'd then have to explain what that stat is, give it some context (maybe typical size of an innings) and so on.

If I was describing Ruth in cricket terms I'd call him a really good version of someone like Virender Sehweg - say averaging 60-65 with the bat in tests, with a strike rate of 80-90, and able to play as a 2nd spinner if required.

Thanks Pete, that's at least in some kind of terms I can understand!

Think that Pete's analogy is almost fair. I'd give Ruth an average of 70-75 myself, and suggest that he would be more of a first change seamer, but otherwise, almost spot on!

captain carrantuohil wrote:Think that Pete's analogy is almost fair. I'd give Ruth an average of 70-75 myself, and suggest that he would be more of a first change seamer, but otherwise, almost spot on!

I started out typing 3rd seamer (i.e. 1st change)/2nd spinner but decided to leave it as a spinner because that's what Sehweg bowls, so fair call on 3rd seamer. Let's call him a really really good version of Jesse Ryder instead

And I picked the 65 in terms of Ruth's relative advantage over the other all time greats from baseball, but I wouldn't quibble about 70 either.

I understand baseball stats a bit but not really in context when compared to cricket stats so thanks to the guys above for their comparisons.

I also don't really like Bradman for the totally irrational reason that he came across as a complete square in the BBC Bodyline mini-series shown back in the 80's.

For these reasons and because I love some of the old pictures you see of Babe Ruth he's going to get my vote.

Diggers wrote:Ive just read a report this morning that doping is apparently rife in Australian sport. Im afraid I must therefore exclude Bradman as his achievements are now tainted.

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie.........................Roids, Roids, Roids..


Sorry Linebreaker, couldnt resist it.

Roids are so passé. It's all peptide hormones now...

Shocker if true though.

Peptide hormones,peptide hormones. peptide hormones hardly rhymes with oi,oi,oi...

Bradman, of course.

Sir Donald Bradman wins with ease.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Diggers wrote:Ive just read a report this morning that doping is apparently rife in Australian sport. Im afraid I must therefore exclude Bradman as his achievements are now tainted.

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie.........................Roids, Roids, Roids..


Sorry Linebreaker, couldnt resist it.

No need to apologise to me, Laurie. The Don would be disgusted at the current sporting controversies.