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

Decent matchup and full range of debate. Shame I missed it all yesterday, still...

Bradman for me.

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:Its not that England were particularly the best around, its that it would seem to all reasonable intents and purposes they were the only opposition around.
And lets face it post WW1 England had plenty of problems in the gene pool area. Lost generations of men killed in the war or the flu epedemic afterwards.
I think its best if we just discount anyone from that era.....

Exactly.

Australia lost a huge proportion of their population killed (about 1 in 20) and about 1 in 3 men (of age) wounded in WWI too don't forget. We also had the flu epidemic and the Great Depression - so I can't see your point.

The talent on both sides was denuded, meaning both teams were pretty poor and the standard of cricket by virtue of it being 1930 probably wasn't very good to start with.
The fact that Bradman stood out just means he was better than a bunch of guys who survived the war, flu, depression and who were just about able to manage a game of cricket and who were also barely even professional.

Is Roger Bannister the 1500 GOAT? No of course he isn't, even an idiot could see that the standard at that time was poor just as is was in Bradmans day and that was a lot later than Bradman.

Cricket too, seriously it's not even a sport.

sachin_federer wrote:
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.

Still ploughing the "Sachin is the greatest" line. I love the way you always put "Lara and Tendulkar" to try and mask your undying love for Sachin!

super_realist wrote:
Cricket too, seriously it's not even a sport.

You're not the brightest bubblewrap covering a box are you.

super_realist wrote:The talent on both sides was denuded, meaning both teams were pretty poor and the standard of cricket by virtue of it being 1930 probably wasn't very good to start with.
The fact that Bradman stood out just means he was better than a bunch of guys who survived the war, flu, depression and who were just about able to manage a game of cricket and who were also barely even professional.

Is Roger Bannister the 1500 GOAT? No of course he isn't, even an idiot could see that the standard at that time was poor just as is was in Bradmans day and that was a lot later than Bradman.

Cricket too, seriously it's not even a sport.

So you sent 6-11 year olds to the Western Front? Complete nonsense.

Eh? Where did I say that? Bradmans career started in 1928. I bet there were plenty of people in Oz and England playing cricket for their national team who were in their 30's and 40's so they could certainly have been WW1 survivors and many probably were.

Bradman is far too ancient history. Good as he was. It wasn't an era with a great depth of talent, or taken too seriously in terms of todays game

So you wouldn't take Babe Ruth, Jesse Owens, Ty Cobb too seriously either? Where do you want to draw the line then? 1980?

No, I wouldn't. It's too far back for me. I think the Open Era of tennis is a good starting point as it seems to be the point at which sport globally became more professional and increased in standard level.

Can you really imagine watching a football match, skiing, tennis match, boxing, baseball, athletics etc from 1928 and be remotely impressed by the standard or interested in it?

So we start in 1968 then? So that's most of Pele's career we can put in the bin, England's World Cup win, Laker's ten wickets etc etc etc

VTR wrote:So we start in 1968 then? So that's most of Pele's career we can put in the bin, England's World Cup win, Laker's ten wickets etc etc etc

Seems OK to me. I'd probably say around 62-64 personally, but 68 would be fine, mind you there was a distinct lack of professionalism in golf and rugby up until very recently.

Yes, if I was of that era I would, super_realist. You have to compare the candidate in question with their contemporaries.

Boxing was pretty damn brutal 80 years ago, don't make the mistake of thinking cricket was a gentle gentleman's game.
People still got injured, battered around and sent the stumps cartwheeling.

It's just that we don't have reels and reels of film of it available (compared to the digital era today) so we have to either do the research ourselves or have the benefit of knowing someone's grandson/daughter, etc who can pass on the more detailed knowledge.

Can you really imagine watching a football match, skiing, tennis match, boxing, baseball, athletics etc from 1928 and be remotely impressed by the standard or interested in it?

I've seen footage of Tunney v Dempsey from the mid 20's and Tunney, in particular, looks impressive as hell and wouldn't be out of place fighting today.

You seem to have a problem with black and white footage.

More the tiny field of talent back then. Sports were done by a miniscule proportion of people back then professionally. Doesn't impress me much, especially some of the team games although, admittedly there is a technology issue hindering them too.

More the tiny field of talent back then.

You offer generalised opinions across all sports without knowing half as much as you think you do about most of them. If you think there was little professionalism in boxing in the 20's and there were low participation rates and low talent levels, then you expose a complete lack of knowlegde on the subject.

I thought this process was all about celebrating sport. Yes, it's great to discuss the relative merits of the participants but your endless carping about who has or hasn't been included is increasingly tiresome.

Yeah, isn't it ever! Misses the whole purpose completely and reduces it to some nasty, disrespectful and inaccurate bickering.

I've yet to see him mention any sport/sportsperson he actually rates!

Boxing participation was higher between 1920 to 1950 than it is now. This is not my own views, this is fact, which I can happily support with evidence later in the day when I have the relevant books in front of me.

I think your right rowley.. I dont think you need to give us figures.. Boxing has deffo taken a downturn in particpation..

Rowley wrote:Boxing participation was higher between 1920 to 1950 than it is now. This is not my own views, this is fact, which I can happily support with evidence later in the day when I have the relevant books in front of me.

No it wasn't. And even if it was - which it wasn't - then it was only because there were a load of rank amateurs who just did it as a pastime to an awful standard which is barely recognisable when compared to today's crop. I don't care about what evidence you have because it's wrong and made up by misty-eyed old timers who have an agenda. There were no great sportsman at all until 1962 and that's all there is to it.

Just thought I'd save Super_Realist the bother of replying.....

super_realist wrote:

VTR wrote:So we start in 1968 then? So that's most of Pele's career we can put in the bin, England's World Cup win, Laker's ten wickets etc etc etc

Seems OK to me. I'd probably say around 62-64 personally, but 68 would be fine, mind you there was a distinct lack of professionalism in golf and rugby up until very recently.

Are you sure talent pools had recovered sufficiently from WW2 by then? 1962 is only 17 years after the end of the bloodiest conflict in history. Could pick 1980 to ensure all baby boomers were in the talent pool?

I would personally argue that the greatest team of all time is the French handball team from about 06 to the recent Olympics, winning two OGs, two World Championships (fourth in the one they didn't win in 07), and two European championships (the ones they didn't win were in the same year as the Olympics so understandably they were more focussed on the latter). Even more impressively from the 08 Olympics to the London ones the only tournament they didn't win was the European Champ in 2012. I'm not sure what their win % was over this whole period, but suspect it was pretty impressive.

88Chris05 wrote:

Rowley wrote:Boxing participation was higher between 1920 to 1950 than it is now. This is not my own views, this is fact, which I can happily support with evidence later in the day when I have the relevant books in front of me.

No it wasn't. And even if it was - which it wasn't - then it was only because there were a load of rank amateurs who just did it as a pastime to an awful standard which is barely recognisable when compared to today's crop. I don't care about what evidence you have because it's wrong and made up by misty-eyed old timers who have an agenda. There were no great sportsman at all until 1962 and that's all there is to it.

Just thought I'd save Super_Realist the bother of replying.....

Also, human evolution had stood still for tens of thousands of years and suddenly in 1962 it leaped forward in one great big gigantic bound, no doubt spurred on by the fact that people could now see televised sport in colour.

superflyweight wrote:

Also, human evolution had stood still for tens of thousands of years and suddenly in 1962 it leaped forward in one great big gigantic bound, no doubt spurred on by the fact that people could now see televised sport in colour.

Get with the times Superfly, I've just bought a 3D TV so as far as I am concerned only sportsmen who have been shown in 3d should be considered. My top two boxers ever are Carl Froch and Yusef Mack.

superflyweight wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

Rowley wrote:Boxing participation was higher between 1920 to 1950 than it is now. This is not my own views, this is fact, which I can happily support with evidence later in the day when I have the relevant books in front of me.

No it wasn't. And even if it was - which it wasn't - then it was only because there were a load of rank amateurs who just did it as a pastime to an awful standard which is barely recognisable when compared to today's crop. I don't care about what evidence you have because it's wrong and made up by misty-eyed old timers who have an agenda. There were no great sportsman at all until 1962 and that's all there is to it.

Just thought I'd save Super_Realist the bother of replying.....

Also, human evolution had stood still for tens of thousands of years and suddenly in 1962 it leaped forward in one great big gigantic bound, no doubt spurred on by the fact that people could now see televised sport in colour.

Silly statement, but media has certainly dictated how professional sport has developed.

Silly statement

A fan of irony, I see.

Rowley wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Also, human evolution had stood still for tens of thousands of years and suddenly in 1962 it leaped forward in one great big gigantic bound, no doubt spurred on by the fact that people could now see televised sport in colour.

Get with the times Superfly, I've just bought a 3D TV so as far as I am concerned only sportsmen who have been shown in 3d should be considered. My top two boxers ever are Carl Froch and Yusef Mack.

That's ruined my image of you sitting in a dark shed watching grainy black and white footage of Fred Dibnah demolishing a steeple.

Sorry Super, I am nowhere near the luddite my demenour on here would give you cause to believe.

VTR wrote:

sachin_federer wrote:
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.

Still ploughing the "Sachin is the greatest" line. I love the way you always put "Lara and Tendulkar" to try and mask your undying love for Sachin!

Don't let facts come in your way of bashing anyone who brings Tendulkar's name when discussing Bradman. The fact is, I said on page 1 of this thread, "Having said all that, I don't think there is a batting equivalent to Bradman in any era." Where does "Sachin is the greatest" line come from? I am putting "Lara and Tendulkar" because the whole discussion started when Chris put "Lara and Tendulkar" together to compare with Bradman. But again, let not facts come in way of your one-eyed view of Tendulkar fans.

I'm probably the only one on this thread who's sat a few paces from the Don. (a few times in the 80's and 90's)

He would be staring straight through super_realist... (as he did me) but with the faintest of smirks after about 3 seconds.
He was quite imposing but somehow friendly? He would have been used to it... people having a look at him. It was an experience I'll never forget.

Not arrogantly or anything... but there was this amazing aura of accomplishment and self-assuredness. Firm but fair.

Now when I go there and get to the top of the stairs - there is his portrait staring at me (and everyone else) in the eye again.
It only seems like yesterday when he was there in the flesh. Now wonder we rave on and on about him.

Always remember his great line when watching an abject English bowling attack. Someone asked the Don how many he thought he would have scored against the attack, his response was "around 70 or 80" The person who asked him looked shocked and said is that all? His response was a priceless "well I am 75!"

sachin_federer wrote:

VTR wrote:

sachin_federer wrote:
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.

Still ploughing the "Sachin is the greatest" line. I love the way you always put "Lara and Tendulkar" to try and mask your undying love for Sachin!

Don't let facts come in your way of bashing anyone who brings Tendulkar's name when discussing Bradman. The fact is, I said on page 1 of this thread, "Having said all that, I don't think there is a batting equivalent to Bradman in any era." Where does "Sachin is the greatest" line come from? I am putting "Lara and Tendulkar" because the whole discussion started when Chris put "Lara and Tendulkar" together to compare with Bradman. But again, let not facts come in way of your one-eyed view of Tendulkar fans.

I was responding to your later posts where you seem to have changed your tune. People can change opinions and you seem to have on this issue. Plus your bizarre rant about Bradman not being the greatest by a mile.

@Sachin_Federer... The Tennis equivalent of Lara/Tendulkar v Bradman is Federer/Nadal v Laver (and Emerson/Borg/Sampras/Lendl/McEnroe all take a back seat).

Such 'era' debates boil down to statistical gymnastics and have very little value otherwise. Just passion-rousers are such debates.

Bradman was very complimentary of Tendulkar, and many others. I would suggest a similar approach to athletes who have made history of sport A or sport B.

Hello



I will keep posting here



emancipator

since it is the only GOAT thread



emancipator

I can see



emancipator

Haaaaaaaaaalleluuuuuuuuujah haaaaaaaaaaalleluuuuuujah



rotapicname

Jesus, 49 of you are mental ...

yellowgoatboy wrote:Jesus, 49 of you are mental ...

49 of you suck Werthers Originals.

My werthers are so good to me

sweet and soft, yummy yummy..

Or something like that