v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Match 5

First topic message reminder :

The last sixteen’s four match up pitted Bjorn Borg against Steve Redgrave for a spot in the final 8, it was the Olympic rowing champion who established an early lead and maintained it all day to progress without every really looking threatened by Borg. The Grand Slam champ exits the tournament at this stage after dispatching Jackie Joyner Kershee, Joe Montana, Gareth Edwards and the wildcard LeBron James.

Elsewhere in the competition SRR and Michael Jordan competed in a rematch of their round 2 face off in what can only be described as a grudge match! After a day of voting swinging in both directions it was eventually Jordan that took the match and progresses with 54% of the vote.

Today we move into the second half of the draw with a another blockbuster match up, pitting arguably two potential GOAT’s in their respected fields: Diego Maradonna and Don Bradman.

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

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Diego Maradonna- Football- Championed by Hero

One day, Lionel Messi will possibly prove to be the global game's greatest player, but not yet, and certainly not just because he has blown the all-time number of goals in a calendar year. Messi may be scoring goals at a rate rarely seen since Dixie Dean's heyday, but he does have the advantage of being at the sharp end of probably the greatest club side of all time. Take Messi out of Barcelona and what do you have?
We already have an answer.

In the last World Cup Messi failed to score in five matches as Argentina lost in the quarter-final to Germany whilst his Barca teammates have lifted the Euro twice and the World Cup. It is argued that the Champions League is now a higher standard than the World Cup (not that the presence of Apoel Nicosia in the quarter-finals adds much weight to that view). Whether it is or not is irrelevant when judging Messi because he is playing for the best team in the competition, a team which even without him would be formidable. A truly great player is capable of turning a moderate team into a winning one. Like Diego Maradona.

English attitudes towards Maradona are understandably coloured by the ""Hand of God"" goal but his notoriety should not obscure his greatness. Maradona turned base materials into gold on both the club and international stage. Napoli were a shambles when they somehow found the cash to buy him in 1984. Fighting relegation had become a way of life with the club surviving by a point the previous season. Maradona turned them into title contenders and in 1986/87 they won the first scudetto in the club's history. A second Serie A title, and Napoli's first European prize, the Uefa Cup, followed. Since Maradona left, the club have not won a trophy.
Maradona was similarly central to Argentina's 1986 World Cup success. Ten of their 14 goals were scored or created by him, and his five goals included superb ones against England and Belgium of the type now associated with Messi. In the final, after West Germany had come back from 2-0 down to level, he supplied the pass for Jorge Burruchaga to score the winner. All this while carrying a knee injury which had threatened to rule him out of the tournament.

Brian Glanville, in The Story of the World Cup, his history of the competition since 1930, wrote: ""It will always be remembered as Maradona's World Cup, seldom has a player, even Pele, so dominated the competition. In an era when individual talent was at a premium, defensive football more prevalent than ever, Maradona – squat, muscular, explosive, endlessly adroit – showed that a footballer of genius could still prevail.""

This context is another factor in Maradona's primacy. He formerly played in an era when the tactics were negative and the tackling brutal. Maradona's relative lack of impact at Barcelona, and later decline, had much to do with the injuries he suffered including the notorious ankle-break by Andoni Goikoetxea, the ""Butcher of Bilbao"". Only after the 1990 World Cup, when Maradona carried to the final an Argentine team which was as guilty of these sins as any, did Fifa begin the crackdown which has allowed players like Messi to flourish.

Simply put Maradona was the best player in the most global sport and therefore rightfully should challenge for the biggest prize of all, the G.O.A.T.

Don Bradman- Cricket-Championed by Fists of fury

Sir Donald Bradman
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

Has to be Bradman. Absolutely clear cur - despite the best arguments that Super unrealist can come up with

Taylorman wrote:No contest for me. The greatest of one sport versus a top 10 at best in another?

Come on, Maradona is a nailed on top 3 for anyone who knows anything about football and for many, though not the majority, the best ever.
And you do have to compare the era's and the sports. To say its no contest is a joke, football is just so far and away the biggest sport and people shouldn't forget that.

And our Don Bradman is just so far and away the biggest sportsman in all sports and you should acknowledge that.

Athlete / Sport / Statistic / Standard Deviations

Bradman / Cricket / Batting average / 4.4
Pelé / Football / Goals per game / 3.7
Ty Cobb / Baseball / Batting average / 3.6
Jack Nicklaus / Golf / Major titles / 3.5
Michael Jordan / Basketball / Points per game / 3.4

Diggers wrote:

Taylorman wrote:No contest for me. The greatest of one sport versus a top 10 at best in another?

Come on, Maradona is a nailed on top 3 for anyone who knows anything about football and for many, though not the majority, the best ever.
And you do have to compare the era's and the sports. To say its no contest is a joke, football is just so far and away the biggest sport and people shouldn't forget that.

In this part of the World football (soccer) is only a minor sport, and people shouldnt forget that.

Diggers wrote:

Taylorman wrote:No contest for me. The greatest of one sport versus a top 10 at best in another?

Come on, Maradona is a nailed on top 3 for anyone who knows anything about football and for many, though not the majority, the best ever.
And you do have to compare the era's and the sports. To say its no contest is a joke, football is just so far and away the biggest sport and people shouldn't forget that.

Look at his write up. It talks more about Messi than Maradona. His efforts to get him to this page revolve around one 6 week period in 1986- and thats it. He shone (and even then no so brightly in spells) for 6 weeks. Bradman was consistently top of sport for years and set records still standing today.

Pleeeeease- its not the sport we are voting, its the efforts of the competitor- 6 weeks of infamy. If anything, he was inconsistent internationally outside that tournament and consistency must be in there somewhere otherwise how are you proven in the sport. Sometimes I think football fans get a bit carried away. Wonder where they get that from...

If you think Maradona's career constituted 6 weeks them you know nothing about football. The guy had a brilliant career, the word genius is overused but he was one, as was Bradman to be fair.

And if anyone is getting carried away its the cricket fans thinking that the sport back in the 30's was much bigger than it clearly was.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Taylorman wrote:No contest for me. The greatest of one sport versus a top 10 at best in another?

Come on, Maradona is a nailed on top 3 for anyone who knows anything about football and for many, though not the majority, the best ever.
And you do have to compare the era's and the sports. To say its no contest is a joke, football is just so far and away the biggest sport and people shouldn't forget that.

In this part of the World football (soccer) is only a minor sport, and people shouldnt forget that.

That part of the world is minor and people shouldn't forget that either

I'm going with Maradona. A true sporting genius, ridiculously talented and played in an era of rock solid balls, no protection and amateurish (compared to today) footwear and pitch conditions.. yet produced the most sublime magic on a football pitch and when the stakes were highest.

There is no way that Bradman is twice as a good a batsman as say Lara or Tendulkar. His batting average does not reflect the real difference in talent between him and the rest of the cricket GOATs. It is a statistical anomaly. The only reasonable explanation is that the competition at the time was much weaker.

Every other sport seems to accept that the level of competition and professional has moved forward.. except cricket.

Bradman was most likely a fantastic talent in a tiny pool. His achievement is great, but GOAT of all sports? Not in a million years.

Diggers wrote:And if anyone is getting carried away its the cricket fans thinking that the sport back in the 30's was much bigger than it clearly was.

To be fair, in terms of crowds, public interest etc. cricket WAS pretty big back in the 30s.

Why do people always forget about what he did at Napoli, arguably his biggest achievement. In their whole history they've won Serie A twice and been runners up four times, Maradona was there for four of those seasons, coincidence I think not.

In his time at Napoli there honours are as follows;

National titles

Serie A:
Champions (2): 1986–87; 1989–90
Runners-up (2): 1987-88; 1988-89

Coppa Italia:
Winners: 1986–87
Runners-up : 1988-89

Supercoppa Italiana: 1
Winners: 1990

European titles

UEFA Cup: 1
Winners: 1988–89

emancipator wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Taylorman wrote:No contest for me. The greatest of one sport versus a top 10 at best in another?

Come on, Maradona is a nailed on top 3 for anyone who knows anything about football and for many, though not the majority, the best ever.
And you do have to compare the era's and the sports. To say its no contest is a joke, football is just so far and away the biggest sport and people shouldn't forget that.

In this part of the World football (soccer) is only a minor sport, and people shouldnt forget that.

That part of the world is minor and people shouldn't forget that either I'm going with Maradona. A true sporting genius, ridiculously talented and played in an era of rock solid balls, no protection and amateurish (compared to today) footwear and pitch conditions.. yet produced the most sublime magic on a football pitch and when the stakes were highest.

There is no way that Bradman is twice as a good a batsman as say Lara or Tendulkar. His batting average does not reflect the real difference in talent between him and the rest of the cricket GOATs. It is a statistical anomaly. The only reasonable explanation is that the competition at the time was much weaker.

Every other sport seems to accept that the level of competition and professional has moved forward.. except cricket.

Bradman was most likely a fantastic talent in a tiny pool. His achievement is great, but GOAT of all sports? Not in a million years.

Not so minor when England needs a hand with a World War.

emancipator wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Taylorman wrote:No contest for me. The greatest of one sport versus a top 10 at best in another?

Come on, Maradona is a nailed on top 3 for anyone who knows anything about football and for many, though not the majority, the best ever.
And you do have to compare the era's and the sports. To say its no contest is a joke, football is just so far and away the biggest sport and people shouldn't forget that.

In this part of the World football (soccer) is only a minor sport, and people shouldnt forget that.

That part of the world is minor and people shouldn't forget that either

I'm going with Maradona. A true sporting genius, ridiculously talented and played in an era of rock solid balls, no protection and amateurish (compared to today) footwear and pitch conditions.. yet produced the most sublime magic on a football pitch and when the stakes were highest.

There is no way that Bradman is twice as a good a batsman as say Lara or Tendulkar. His batting average does not reflect the real difference in talent between him and the rest of the cricket GOATs. It is a statistical anomaly. The only reasonable explanation is that the competition at the time was much weaker.

Every other sport seems to accept that the level of competition and professional has moved forward.. except cricket.

Bradman was most likely a fantastic talent in a tiny pool. His achievement is great, but GOAT of all sports? Not in a million years.

Outside Maradonas 4 world cups (2 largely disappointing and one drug busted- well the one we know about (Lance?)) what did he do to earn greatness outside 86.

Im sure there were better English defenders before and since the English game as well and I cant believe Maradona was twice as good as todays players that he could run through half the side to score at the other end...the only reasonable explanation is at that time the competition were that much weaker.

while I voted for Bradman, to be fair to Maradona, and as Ghosty points out, there was a lot more to his career than just the 86 World Cup, notably of course his career at Napoli. Another thing that hasn't been debated so far re Maradona is how much importance we should attach to his black marks: the "hand of god" incident and the positive drugs test.

On the hand of god incident, what bothers me is not so much the fact that he cheated (most sportsmen do, particularly since increased professionalism), but the comments afterwards, which were in incredibly poor taste and displayed an unbelievable arrogance IMVHO. I get the political situation etc. will have played a part, but nonetheless there was a great lack of class there.

The positive drugs test is another serious blot on the copybook. I seem to recall Merckx was basically voted out of the process partly due to his links to drugs at a much earlier stage (though again I think the current context of the Armstrong situation, as well as a very low cycling presence on these boards, counted against him, a shame as I'd have liked him in my last few), so surely this also needs to count against Maradona.

Is Maradonna the guy that was on cocaine?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Diggers wrote:And if anyone is getting carried away its the cricket fans thinking that the sport back in the 30's was much bigger than it clearly was.

To be fair, in terms of crowds, public interest etc. cricket WAS pretty big back in the 30s.

But nothing remotely close in terms of the talent pool to football in the 80's. Maradona was rated as the best player in the world for a good few years, to suggest his career boiled down to 86 is just crazy.

Thats right Laurie...a drug cheat and a cheat as an actual 'sportsman' in the actual 6 week window that he was any good (a Napoli career in itself hardly relevant here) is rated higher than Bradman who's impeccable career can be 'explained' as all others around him were probably useless.

You gotta laugh...perhaps some people need to look up the word 'sport' to remind themselves of its meaning.

Taylorman wrote:

emancipator wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Taylorman wrote:No contest for me. The greatest of one sport versus a top 10 at best in another?

Come on, Maradona is a nailed on top 3 for anyone who knows anything about football and for many, though not the majority, the best ever.
And you do have to compare the era's and the sports. To say its no contest is a joke, football is just so far and away the biggest sport and people shouldn't forget that.

In this part of the World football (soccer) is only a minor sport, and people shouldnt forget that.

That part of the world is minor and people shouldn't forget that either

I'm going with Maradona. A true sporting genius, ridiculously talented and played in an era of rock solid balls, no protection and amateurish (compared to today) footwear and pitch conditions.. yet produced the most sublime magic on a football pitch and when the stakes were highest.

There is no way that Bradman is twice as a good a batsman as say Lara or Tendulkar. His batting average does not reflect the real difference in talent between him and the rest of the cricket GOATs. It is a statistical anomaly. The only reasonable explanation is that the competition at the time was much weaker.

Every other sport seems to accept that the level of competition and professional has moved forward.. except cricket.

Bradman was most likely a fantastic talent in a tiny pool. His achievement is great, but GOAT of all sports? Not in a million years.

Outside Maradonas 4 world cups (2 largely disappointing and one drug busted- well the one we know about (Lance?)) what did he do to earn greatness outside 86.

Im sure there were better English defenders before and since the English game as well and I cant believe Maradona was twice as good as todays players that he could run through half the side to score at the other end...the only reasonable explanation all that says is at that time the competition were that much weaker.

I refer you to Ghosty's post

Dribbling around a bunch of players and scoring is completely different to having a batting average that is almost twice as high as the next highest. For one the former is not really quantifiable and does not equal to being 'twice as good' as all the other GOAT footballers. The cricketers however seem to take Bradman's batting average at face value and often use it as an indicator of him being that much better than the rest. I think it's impossible for any one person to be that much better (almost double) than all the other GOATs in their chosen sport. Hence there can only be one explanation. He played against a much weaker field.

In comparison, football in the eighties was clearly hugely competitive.

emancipator wrote:
There is no way that Bradman is twice as a good a batsman as say Lara or Tendulkar.

Probably not, but there's no real way to tell for sure. That's both the beauty and the head-banging aspect of these debates: just how to compare across eras?

emancipator wrote:
His batting average is a statistical anomaly. The only reasonable explanation is that the competition at the time was much weaker.

The whole point is that it is an anomaly, and a massive one. A freakish occurrence not reproduced in any other sport. The "weaker competition" argument has been made before, and has some merit, but once more: why then did no one else manage to average even remotely close in the same era? Bradman was that far ahead of the rest...

emancipator wrote:
Every other sport seems to accept that the level of competition and professional has moved forward.. except cricket.

I don't think anyone thinks cricket hasn't moved forward. See my point above re the difficulty of comparing across different eras, surely the point of this debate? Transport 1930's into the current day and he struggles, agreed. Similarly that if you transport Navratilova or even Graf into the current day they would likely be beaten (or even thrashed) by Williams. Ali would probably lose to Wladimir Klitschko, etc. Does this mean they're any "less good"? IMO, no, or we might as well limit ourselves to present day sportsmen only.

Why is his Napoli career not relevant, the fact that their own period of success coincided with Maradona playing for them tells it's own story. I love cricket and played it for years but it's a hard irrefutable fact that it's significance is nothing compared to that of football.

Some boxing fans are laughed at for suggesting anyone from the 30's is even considered good let alone the greatest yet I have to believe that Bradman playing in a minority sport is greater than Maradona.

Cricket not moved forward?

We now have tests, one dayers, IPL, 20/20. Of all sports cricket has done its best to move forward.

Isnt football still a game of 11 v 11 kicking a ball between two sets of posts with not a lot happening for 90 minutes as it was 100 years ago?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why is his Napoli career not relevant, the fact that their own period of success coincided with Maradona playing for them tells it's own story. I love cricket and played it for years but it's a hard irrefutable fact that it's significance is nothing compared to that of football.

Some boxing fans are laughed at for suggesting anyone from the 30's is even considered good let alone the greatest yet I have to believe that Bradman playing in a minority sport is greater than Maradona.

Because without that 6 weeks in 86, Maradona would not be being compared with Bradman. On its own does Maradonas other 3 world cups or his club career put him on this map? Nope.

In fact, its likely that the two goals vs England are the primary reason for him being here.

can't help but feel the last few rounds of this are going to be very much going around in circles. Maybe the process was a bit long after all... Still there's been some great debate, and I feel I've learned a fair bit, particularly about sports which I don't follow at all (Wayne Gretsky springs to mind).

Sorry Ali would probably lose to Wladimir? You've just lost all credibility with 7 words.

I thought that would get you to sit up and take notice Ghosty

There would be more chance of proving the existence of Zeus.

I think if Ali fought Wladimir today then Wladimir would probably win, but if the fight was held in 1980 then I am more than convinced that Ali would win.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

emancipator wrote:
There is no way that Bradman is twice as a good a batsman as say Lara or Tendulkar.

Probably not, but there's no real way to tell for sure. That's both the beauty and the head-banging aspect of these debates: just how to compare across eras?

emancipator wrote:
His batting average is a statistical anomaly. The only reasonable explanation is that the competition at the time was much weaker.

The whole point is that it is an anomaly, and a massive one. A freakish occurrence not reproduced in any other sport. The "weaker competition" argument has been made before, and has some merit, but once more: why then did no one else manage to average even remotely close in the same era? Bradman was that far ahead of the rest...

emancipator wrote:
Every other sport seems to accept that the level of competition and professional has moved forward.. except cricket.

I don't think anyone thinks cricket hasn't moved forward. See my point above re the difficulty of comparing across different eras, surely the point of this debate? Transport 1930's into the current day and he struggles, agreed. Similarly that if you transport Navratilova or even Graf into the current day they would likely be beaten (or even thrashed) by Williams. Ali would probably lose to Wladimir Klitschko, etc. Does this mean they're any "less good"? IMO, no, or we might as well limit ourselves to present day sportsmen only.

Those are all fair points.

I agree that players can only truely be compared with those from their own era. However I also think that in a competition for the GOAT (ie across all time and eras) there has to be some consideration for the quality of the fields in those respective eras. In other words at some point there needs to be some kind of line drawn whereby we accept that players of a certain era, no matter how good their statistics, were a product of a combinaton of their own sporting genius AND favourable conditions (read competition or lack of, be it from a smaller talent pool or less professionalism). Thus such incredible stats need to be put into context.

Bradman's batting average is so far ahead of subsequent generations that it cannot be accounted for just by sporting genius. He must have had favourable conditions to compile such a record. I cannot think of any other sport where the consensus GOAT is that far ahead of the competition statistically. I don't think it's humanly possible to be that much better than all the best in your chosen field over the entire course of history. Hence the likely explanation is that he was undoubtedly great but was also helped by favourable conditions (as defined above). Of course he was that much better than his peers, that much we can agree upon. What we cannot agree upon is how good his peers actually were. I doubt very much that they were anywhere near as good as the current top cricketers.

I did overlook the possibility of him facing a parkinsons riddled 2013 version of Ali.

well of course if you take Einstein to be correct in his theory of relativity (and most sane people reckon he wasn't far off) an unfortunate side-effect is that time-travel is impossible, so there'll never be any way to know for sure

Kant wrote something on the different proofs of the existence of God and why they were all false did he not? pretty sure my philosophy teacher mentioned it, never read Kant myself

emancipator wrote:Bradman's batting average is so far ahead of subsequent generations that it cannot be accounted for just by sporting genius. He must have had favourable conditions to compile such a record. I cannot think of any other sport where the consensus GOAT is that far ahead of the competition statistically. I don't think it's humanly possible to be that much better than all the best in your chosen field over the entire course of history. Hence the likely explanation is that he was undoubtedly great but was also helped by favourable conditions (as defined above). Of course he was that much better than his peers, that much we can agree upon. What we cannot agree upon is how good his peers actually were. I doubt very much that they were anywhere near as good as the current top cricketers.

Yet a number of Bradman's contemporaries are reckoned, by some pretty good judges, to be among the best players ever.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I did overlook the possibility of him facing a parkinsons riddled 2013 version of Ali.

We understand Ghosty, it was an oversight caused by your eagerness to criticise Mad for Chelsea's credibility.

some good points emanci, I can't summon the energy to answer them now, but I don't think we're in a huge disagreement here. The problem will inevitably arise whenever someone dominates any sport (specifically individual ones, or at least based on individual contests such as cricket): how much is due to how good that person is, and how much due to how relatively poor the competition? your own protégé Roger Federer of course frequently comes up against a similar argument, and no doubt we'll have this discussion again in the previous rounds.

Off to bed, been fun debating

I confess, I wrote the bit about Ali losing to Wlad to annoy Ghosty, it was very bad of me. However, is it really inconceivable that with modern training methods, increased athleticism, and of course his physical advantages Wlad would give Ali a tough time? maybe not, but I'm not in the best position to judge that, not being a boxing expert. My tennis analogy remains though: Graf and Navratilova at their peak, transported through time, would lose to Williams. However, give Graf and Navratilova the current racquet technology, training methods, etc. and it is my very humble opinion that they would beat her pretty comfortably.

Similar IMHO with Bradman: give him today's training, bat technology, video analysis, etc. and I think he would still be the best around, though the problems he would face would be very different. Talent will out...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:some good points emanci, I can't summon the energy to answer them now, but I don't think we're in a huge disagreement here. The problem will inevitably arise whenever someone dominates any sport (specifically individual ones, or at least based on individual contests such as cricket): how much is due to how good that person is, and how much due to how relatively poor the competition? your own protégé Roger Federer of course frequently comes up against a similar argument, and no doubt we'll have this discussion again in the previous rounds.

Off to bed, been fun debating

Yeah I'm just about ready to go to bed.

But I'll say this with regards to Federer. He played and still plays in the ultramodern era. The talent pool is huge and the the level of professional immense. Just by those measures the competition cannot be weak. Besides he's not doing too bad even now

I cant help but think that in some ways it would have been harder for Bradman to amass the runs that he did compared to player in the resent environment with things like:
Bats with proper rubber padding compare to just a bit of leather wrapped around the handle.
Balls now being machine manufactured, are harder, hence would come off the bat faster.
Light weight pads tightly bound with the assisstance of velcro would be a lot more comfortable to the aod pads made out of wivker and straps and buckles, thus contributing to not only ones time at the crease but also the speed you can get up to over 22 yards.
Not to mention faster outfields with the latest machines cutting/rolling the out field.etc etc etc.

Lest you forget MFC, Graf did in fact beat Williams on a few occassions at the tail end of her career so I don't think it's the best possible analogy. Navaratilova is a different proposition altogether where the courts and the balls would make a fair bit of difference to her game although her ability to still be a grand slam winner in doubles late into her 40's doesn't make it a foregone conclusion.

emancipator wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:some good points emanci, I can't summon the energy to answer them now, but I don't think we're in a huge disagreement here. The problem will inevitably arise whenever someone dominates any sport (specifically individual ones, or at least based on individual contests such as cricket): how much is due to how good that person is, and how much due to how relatively poor the competition? your own protégé Roger Federer of course frequently comes up against a similar argument, and no doubt we'll have this discussion again in the previous rounds.

Off to bed, been fun debating

Yeah I'm just about ready to go to bed.

But I'll say this with regards to Federer. He played and still plays in the ultramodern era. The talent pool is huge and the the level of professional immense. Just by those measures the competition cannot be weak. Besides he's not doing too bad even now

So consider the position of the All Blacks. They too are in the modern game with millions of players playing the game world wide. Its not as widely played as a few sports but it is up there as a major sport.
Since 2000 they have had a 83% plus winning record that is far and away better than any other side and I've yet to find any side in any international sport that is played as widely as having anything like that as a winning %. And youd have to go to some fairly niched sports to get to anyone with that sort of %.

So how is that explained? Are the players of today that much weaker? Or is it just that you can't have a similar scenario in Bradmans era purely because its 'just not believable that he was that much better'?

Cricket in the 30's was mainly England and Australia so it's significance isn't the same as the current all blacks team.

New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France, Italy, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga gives a stronger indication of talent than say if it was just New Zealand and Australia.

Sorry Maradonna you drawn a wrong name to compete against, DM would have had a smooth sail to next round by a Hand goal against most opponents but not against Sir Don. Even if Maradonna tries a hand goal Don would flick it for a square drive classic four.

Sir Donald Bradman wins it 70-30

Taylorman wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:some good points emanci, I can't summon the energy to answer them now, but I don't think we're in a huge disagreement here. The problem will inevitably arise whenever someone dominates any sport (specifically individual ones, or at least based on individual contests such as cricket): how much is due to how good that person is, and how much due to how relatively poor the competition? your own protégé Roger Federer of course frequently comes up against a similar argument, and no doubt we'll have this discussion again in the previous rounds.

Off to bed, been fun debating

Yeah I'm just about ready to go to bed.

But I'll say this with regards to Federer. He played and still plays in the ultramodern era. The talent pool is huge and the the level of professional immense. Just by those measures the competition cannot be weak. Besides he's not doing too bad even now

So consider the position of the All Blacks. They too are in the modern game with millions of players playing the game world wide. Its not as widely played as a few sports but it is up there as a major sport.
Since 2000 they have had a 83% plus winning record that is far and away better than any other side and I've yet to find any side in any international sport that is played as widely as having anything like that as a winning %. And youd have to go to some fairly niched sports to get to anyone with that sort of %.

So how is that explained? Are the players of today that much weaker? Or is it just that you can't have a similar scenario in Bradmans era purely because its 'just not believable that he was that much better'?

Is the next best winning percentage over a comparable period less than 50%? I don't follow Rugby very closely so I can't say.

That's the kind of anomaly we're talking about with regards to Bradman's stat.

Besides, that stat is a team effort whereas Bradman's is mostly an individual stat. There's is a collective achievement and a cumulation of talent resulting in a period of dominance. In other words we're not comparing like for like. The All Blacks have a long culture and tradition of playing rugby and a system which churns out world class players like a conveyor belt. They've always been great at it.

The All Blacks are the Winingist team that plays International sport competitively in the World, (The Harlem Globe Trotters do not compete competitively.) No All Blacks made it past round one in the G.O.A.T. forum.

Don't get me wrong; I think Bradman deserves consideration. That stat is too good to be explained purely by circumstance (favourable conditions) but as we're in the nitty gritty end of discussing the GOAT across all sports then I think it's only fair to dissect the absolute validity of it rather than to just take it at face value.

Redgrave had his validity challenged based on him being british and this being a british forum but is the same also not true of Bradman, how many countries outside of the select few cricketing nations would even begin to consider his claim?

I saw the Harlem Globetrotters about 30 years ago.

They did that thing where the other team gets off to a flyer. They pretended to be 'shellshocked 'with lots of and some fake amongst themselves. Then they 'clicked' all of a sudden. Great entertainers! It was a riot of a night.

Laurie, so the best team and best individual of all time... in all sports come from Australia and NZ.

Is it something in the air or water do you think? Or a bit of both perhaps?

Think we just try harder and have higher standards, and then when England gets into a war they whistle up the ANZACs.

emancipator wrote:Don't get me wrong; I think Bradman deserves consideration. That stat is too good to be explained purely by circumstance (favourable conditions) but as we're in the nitty gritty end of discussing the GOAT across all sports then I think it's only fair to dissect the absolute validity of it rather than to just take it at face value.

Well said... we could do with you on our rugby boards. Your ability to remain objective through what I'd call a bit of mud slinging is impressive.

My real objection to Maradona is he didnt use his skills for the better of others. He cheated and was a drug user.

I dont like to put people like that on any pedestal. Particularly when its comparing him to someone like Bradman.
I also disgree there were no great players in his era. Hammond, Hutton, Jardine (said with a grain of salt), players that managed similar scores as Bradman- ust not as consistently.

oh... next best after the ABs in the same period is England with 62 % then South Africa with 60%. Which surprises me. The date of 2000 disregards a 17 test streak of SA just before 2000 so its usually them second. You have to have other sides over 50%- they cant al lose to eachother...

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

emancipator wrote:Bradman's batting average is so far ahead of subsequent generations that it cannot be accounted for just by sporting genius. He must have had favourable conditions to compile such a record. I cannot think of any other sport where the consensus GOAT is that far ahead of the competition statistically. I don't think it's humanly possible to be that much better than all the best in your chosen field over the entire course of history. Hence the likely explanation is that he was undoubtedly great but was also helped by favourable conditions (as defined above). Of course he was that much better than his peers, that much we can agree upon. What we cannot agree upon is how good his peers actually were. I doubt very much that they were anywhere near as good as the current top cricketers.

Yet a number of Bradman's contemporaries are reckoned, by some pretty good judges, to be among the best players ever.

Did Bradman have to face THE two greatest spinners 150 years of test cricket has seen? Tendulkar and Lara had to face them. Did Bradman have to face a host of ALL TIME GREAT bowlers like McGrath, Donald, Akram, Waqar, Ambrose, etc. The list does not even include the likes of Pollock, Walsh, etc who are considered by many as greats. Tendulkar and Lara had to face all of them.

No he didnt. Those spinners made the fatal mistake of not being born in time- Bradman was there waiting. Why werent the bowlers you mention? Its as pointless an argument as picking Lara in this side when we should all know that Lara didnt face the greatest bowler of all time, the one who will be born in 2089.

Its BECAUSE of pacesetters like Bradman that allows people like Lara to even be cosidered worthy to walk in their shoes, to be inspired to set the standards of today and the higher ones of tomorrow.

For that reason you do every sportsperson a disservice by comparing them to people who arent even born yet.

I voted Maradona and then realised it was Hero championing. A man who doesnt rate Bobby Moore. A fool.

I couldnt vote Bradman though, he achieved great things against nothing. I'm still the formula one world champion of my patio and a peddle car I drove around in circles. Vettel? Wears a helmet like a wuss, I was only 6 and I beat record after record in a time when I didnt know the time properly.