v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 3

First topic message reminder :

Yesterday’s group pitted four sporting greats from the worlds of Tennis, Cycling, Athletics and American Football against each other and after a close battle between Bjorn Borg and Eddy Merckx that ebbed and flowed all day Borg finally proved victorious taking the group with 26 votes to Merckx 24. Both progress into round 2 with Kershee and Joe Montana exiting the competition at the first stage.

Today’s group see football, boxing, tennis and cricket compete for your votes.

We have just the one article today championing one of the four entrants, so please feel free to add your comments below to assist your chosen participant.

Please vote for the competitor you believe has achieved the most in sport and should progress into the next round.

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Donald Bradman- Cricket- Championed by Fists of fury

Australia
Test record: 6,996 runs in 80 innings at an average of 99.94 (29 centuries)

It is a rare phenomenon indeed where an individual can be undisputedly and universally acknowledged as the finest to have ever participated in a sport. It is rarer still for that individual to be recognised as the greatest there ever will be, despite seemingly no human being beyond Mystic Meg and the recently unmasked Eric Bristow possessing the gift of foresight.

For Pele, there is Maradona. For Nicklaus, there is Woods. For ‘The Don’, there is no rival. He stands alone.

Such are the statistics of Donald George Bradman. Plying his trade throughout the 1930’s and 40’s in the famous ‘baggy green’ of Australia, Bradman compiled a record almost twice as formidable as anyone else in the history of Test cricket. In a sport harking back to 1877, that is an astonishing feat. Bradman’s final Test average of 99.94 grows all the more impressive when you consider that the widely recognised barometer for a modern batsman attaining greatness is, in comparison, a mere 50. For a sportsman to be so far afield of his predecessors, contemporaries and successors is surely unique.

Perhaps indicative of the supremacy asserted almost every time The Don walked to the crease, former Australia captain Bill Woodfull proclaimed Bradman to be “worth three batsmen to Australia.” Where a team scoring 300 in one day is classed as operating at a fairly brisk pace, Bradman once single handedly made 309 on the first day of a Test against England at Headingley. Such dominance of bat over ball was unusually rare in the age of uncovered pitches, and remains so in today’s comparatively batsman friendly era.

Despite being the holder of records that will likely never be challenged in anger, let alone broken, statistics are but one facet of what makes a great sportsman. It often takes a truly inspirational individual to transcend the sport within which they participate. Much as Muhammad Ali transcended the sport of boxing, Don Bradman transcended cricket. Bradman emerged during a period of great economic hardship in Australia, and through the sheer force of his on-field performances it is said gave happiness and hope to a populace in the midst of depression.

You can't tell youngsters today of the attraction of the fellow. I mean, business used to stop in the town when Bradman was playing and likely to go in - all the offices closed, the shops closed; everybody went up to see him play. – England bowler Bill Bowes, 1983

Bradman would go on to exhibit a further trait of any world class sportsman: success in the face of adversity. After scoring an extraordinary 974 runs at an average of 139.14 in the 1930 Ashes tour of England, Bradman was infamously targeted by hostile and aggressive ‘Bodyline’ bowling during the 1932-33 return series in Australia – a theory designed with the sole intention of taking Bradman’s wicket, whereby the English fast bowlers would deliberately target the body of the batsman with a packed leg-side cordon of fielders lying in wait – The Don was almost rendered mortal with a series average of 56.57 (still a world class average by anyone’s standards). It was his own controversial tactic of combating bodyline by backing away and hitting the ball in an unorthodox manner in to the vacant off-side that won Bradman plaudits for attempting to find a solution to Bodyline.

It should be noted that, despite the whole of Australia being in uproar over the “vicious and unsporting” tactics employed by the English captain Douglas Jardine, and despite his own misgivings, Bradman conducted himself with dignity throughout and fought the onslaught in the way he knew best – by scoring runs. ‘Bodyline’, or ‘fast leg theory’ as it was also known, would later be outlawed.

Somewhat ironically, and perhaps unfortunately, the great Don Bradman is as much remembered for his final innings than the unsurpassed genius that had carved a path of destruction through the cricketing world wielding but a plank of willow in the preceding years. Striding to the crease at The Oval in 1948, Bradman required a mere 4 runs from his final Test innings to ensure an overall perfect Test average of 100. Whether through the emotion stirred in The Don through the adulation of the English crowd and opponents as he walked out that day (as much cheers of relief that his utter dominion over England’s bowlers was nearing an end, perhaps?), or the cricketing Gods inflicting a cruel twist of fate as if to reclaim the immortality they had lent him, Bradman was bowled for a duck by Warwickshire leg-spinner Eric Hollies, thus ending his career with that infamous average of 99.94 – a now magical figure in its own right. It will never be bettered.

Next to Mr. Winston Churchill, he was the most celebrated man in England during the summer of 1948. His appearances throughout the country were like one continuous farewell matinée. A miracle has been removed from among us. So must ancient Italy have felt when she heard of the death of Hannibal – cricket writer R.C. Robertson-Glasgow upon Bradman’s retirement, 1949

Sir Donald Bradman died in February of 2001 aged 92. It would have come as a surprise to many that he failed to get out of the 90’s. There are numerous others with a rightful claim to being the greatest sportsman that ever lived, but in Bradman there has surely never been another so superior to their peers. A genius, an icon and a gentleman; The Don satisfies all of the criteria.

Sir Donald George Bradman was, without any question, the greatest phenomenon in the history of cricket, indeed in the history of all ball games. – Wisden Almanack"

Bradman is an outlier but that's exactly what makes him so good. You can only discount an outlier if it can be explained away e.g. Faf Du Plessis averages something like 200 but has only played 2 (3?) Tests. So the sample is small and you can almost ignore that average as it will certainly reduce.

Bradman played over 50 Tests. Against many different bowlers, in different conditions over a 20 year career. No matter what he came up against, he still managed to maintain that average. It is a phenomenal record and one of the greatest sporting achievements ever!

Dummy its all about countering the points being raised..

I think 90% of them are valid on here- for and against.

Overall His average wins out for me. Its as i have said before almost out of this world good.

The question is whether is statistics were made against a bunch of fat unprofessional knackers in a bygone era which while professional in terms of payment may possibly have been lacking in skill, talent and application.

super_realist wrote:The question is whether is statistics were made against a bunch of fat unprofessional knackers in a bygone era which while professional in terms of payment may possibly have been lacking in skill, talent and application.

hehe getting bored pal.. i know your game..

Seriously, raises a question, prior to Bradman was the game of Cricket merely a genteel past time not taken terribly seriously? Did he raise the bar and general interest and did he usher in a new level of professionalism.

If he did , he's due credit. Greatest player ever? Perhaps. Truth is, he's from an era where you just can't make a comparison. So for that reason, for me there is always a slight question mark.

yep a slight question mark i agree..

However Cricket was played alot back in the day and in this country probally as much as it is today!

Besides your occasional fishing atempts i do think your points are valid on this topic, well it offers an ok counter argument anyway.

But I am interested to see what you say about woods tbh!!

Because i for one cant see how anyone cant put him in the top 2 goats for golf.. And yet you do- and you are a golfer.,.. But you have never once explained your reasoning behind it!!

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Do you really believe he is twice as good as Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis, Richards, Sobers, et al ?

No.
Just around 40-45% better.

How would you come about such an odd figure Hoggy?

probally just simple maths(averages!!) Hibbz...

Oakey,
I could never have Golf as a sport. It's a past time, albeit one that I love, but by and large the preserve of fat knackers.
There have been a lot of players in Golf who have been very good. Woods among them, but for me Seve was the sort of mercurial talent similar to O Sullivan in snooker that despite fewer wins really put golf on the map and had vision and talent to which Woods cannot come close. He's too mechanical and wooden. No flamboyance, no character, just joyless, hit it as hard as you can golf. Not fun to watch, probably not fun to play. To top it off the guy is a collosal stroker who looks like he's walking to the gallows rather than being paid £1m just to turn up and I can't stand the sight of him.

mystiroakey wrote:probally just simple maths(averages!!) Hibbz... :D

You think so? I feared as much. Guess that means your (and his) maths are as good as your spelling!!

super_realist wrote:The question is whether is statistics were made against a bunch of fat unprofessional knackers in a bygone era which while professional in terms of payment may possibly have been lacking in skill, talent and application.

Well, Harold Larwood was a professional fast bowler after Nottinghamshire basically called him out of the coal mine. I very much doubt he fits your description of a 'fat unprofessional knacker' (unlike the recently retired Shane Warne). He was also regarded as having a classic fast bowlers action, and indeed several great bowlers of more recent times have modelled themselves on how he bowled. And the reason he is the bowler remembered from the Bodyline series was that he had exceptional accuracy at high pace.

Again, the question is simple:
If Bradman benefitted so much from playing conditions, why was he so far ahead of his contemporaries, and why are their records comparable with those from most other eras?

One problem I have with Bradman is that his talents only make up, at best, half of what cricket is about.

Yeah he was a great batsmen but nobody has suggested he was much cop as a bowler.

One third Hibbz, what was his fielding like too?

Hibbz wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Do you really believe he is twice as good as Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis, Richards, Sobers, et al ?

No.
Just around 40-45% better.

How would you come about such an odd figure Hoggy?

Because I'm c*ap at percentages

I cant be bothered to check his averages hibbz. howver i know what tendulkers is off the top of my head and that bradmans is clearly 45% better!!! so not quite sure what your point is dudio..

Sr I realise you dont consider golf a sport(although I do). And yes i also rate seve highly. I used to follow him religiously at every event i went to. wenty, walton heath, open tracks, sunnigdale, etc.. But woods was on another level to all these great players we had.. The faldos, the normans(way better than his 2 majors IMO), the watsons, Then we had the els's the singhs, pmick. Probally raised the bar from the first few i mentioned. But then Woods just wiped the floor with them for ten years.... Anyway probally best to leave this till he comes up!!

I said half at best because of that super. I think he was meant to be a pretty decent fielder anyway so it could actually be two thirds!

super_realist wrote:One third Hibbz, what was his fielding like too?

He was reknowned as one of the best outfielders of his generation.

Oh Mysti you dear sweet imbecile.

omg...

lol..

yeah i fked it up hibbz..

closer to 100% better

Am looking forward to the discussions on Tiger Woods

mystiroakey wrote:I cant be bothered to check his averages hibbz. howver i know what tendulkers is off the top of my head and that bradmans is clearly 45% better!!! so not quite sure what your point is dudio..

Sr I realise you dont consider golf a sport(although I do). And yes i also rate seve highly. I used to follow him religiously at every event i went to. wenty, walton heath, open tracks, sunnigdale, etc.. But woods was on another level to all these great players we had.. The faldos, the normans(way better than his 2 majors IMO), the watsons, Then we had the els's the singhs, pmick. Probally raised the bar from the first few i mentioned. But then Woods just wiped the floor with them for ten years.... Anyway probally best to leave this till he comes up!!

I can't really argue that he isn't a GOAT Oakey, although, had his peers been as professional as he was in their preparation I doubt he'd have won quite as much as he did, but I can't blame him for that. I just happen to think he's a total C-word.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Hibbz wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Do you really believe he is twice as good as Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis, Richards, Sobers, et al ?

No.
Just around 40-45% better.

How would you come about such an odd figure Hoggy?

Because I'm c*ap at percentages

Ha ha no sweat at least you noticed your mistake immediately unlike another poster who had to quickly edit his insulting post!

Hibbz your to quick off the mark mate.. he was right when it came to sobbers though!!!

and it was no more insulting than yours,,

Hibbz wrote:One problem I have with Bradman is that his talents only make up, at best, half of what cricket is about.

Yeah he was a great batsmen but nobody has suggested he was much cop as a bowler.

that's a bit like criticising Pele/Maradonna for not making goal-saving tackles or goal-line clearances, or someone like Gareth Edwards for not winning turnovers or running the line-out. Cricket, like rugby or football (or indeed pretty much any team sport) is made up of specialist positions. Indeed, coming back slightly to yesterday's debate, part of what made Merckx such an unbelievable cyclist was his ability to do pretty much anything.

mystiroakey wrote:Hibbz your to quick off the mark mate.. he was right when it came to sobbers though!!!

and it was no more insulting than yours,,

Jeez man quit whilst you're behind. He was equally wrong with regard to Sobers.

And my insult was factually correct.

Another insult hibbz- doing well. I edited that post an all. Explained the reasoning. get over yourself..

Give it a rest please, gents.

I think Hoggy and MFC have done a fine job in resuming the Bradman case in my absence there, and in putting to bed these daft little digs.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Hibbz wrote:One problem I have with Bradman is that his talents only make up, at best, half of what cricket is about.

Yeah he was a great batsmen but nobody has suggested he was much cop as a bowler.

that's a bit like criticising Pele/Maradonna for not making goal-saving tackles or goal-line clearances, or someone like Gareth Edwards for not winning turnovers or running the line-out. Cricket, like rugby or football (or indeed pretty much any team sport) is made up of specialist positions. Indeed, coming back slightly to yesterday's debate, part of what made Merckx such an unbelievable cyclist was his ability to do pretty much anything.

Yep it is much the same but also it's in part what makes a task like this utterly subjective. I was all set to suggest Super's Max Woosnam was the man until it transpired he was talking pony!! Comparing within sports overtime is near impossible comparing those from different sports totally impossible.

Fun to try mind you.

Hibbz wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Hibbz wrote:One problem I have with Bradman is that his talents only make up, at best, half of what cricket is about.

Yeah he was a great batsmen but nobody has suggested he was much cop as a bowler.

that's a bit like criticising Pele/Maradonna for not making goal-saving tackles or goal-line clearances, or someone like Gareth Edwards for not winning turnovers or running the line-out. Cricket, like rugby or football (or indeed pretty much any team sport) is made up of specialist positions. Indeed, coming back slightly to yesterday's debate, part of what made Merckx such an unbelievable cyclist was his ability to do pretty much anything.

Yep it is much the same but also it's in part what makes a task like this utterly subjective. I was all set to suggest Super's Max Woosnam was the man until it transpired he was talking pony!! Comparing within sports overtime is near impossible comparing those from different sports totally impossible.

Fun to try mind you.

agreed, it's all completely futile, and pretty much impossible to do, but good fun!

So therefore Bradman is only the best Batsmen, and not the best Cricketer?

Just thinking. Bit like saying Ivanisevic is the tennis GOAT in regards to his serve

Are you my postman hibbz. Did my dog bite you or something?

Anyway yeah i agree its fun to try!! well most of the time, untill posters get all funky anyway!!

Exactly hibbz, which is why there is no need for people to fall out over it.

All we can do is sensibly weigh up the achievements of each candidate and vote in that way.

I am hoping we have an allrounder in here somewhere. However being a jack of all trades never gets you winning anything ..allthough in real teams a decathlete or an all rounder are possibly better sport people than masters of one descipline!!

I think if we're having a subjective debate getting the bit's that are totally objective correct is vital.

Besides which Hoggy was man enough to accept he'd made a complete Horlicks and didn't seem offended.

super_realist wrote:So therefore Bradman is only the best Batsmen, and not the best Cricketer?

Just thinking. Bit like saying Ivanisevic is the tennis GOAT in regards to his serve

Or like saying that Gavin Hastings is the rugby GOAT in regards to his.................oh.

why would he get offended.. You called me an imbecille not him , which i took ok. then you said it was factually correct , that was my problem hibbz. So as i said get over yourself. which you clearly havent

I am happy for anyone to correct the inacuracies- its vital.. But stop being a wrongon about it. I admitted i was wrong and took it.. the end.

Zidane isnt the greatest footballer of all time, and possibly wouldnt make the greatest starting 11 ever, so wont get my vote.

I find Navratilova astonishing, and saying she wouldnt have beaten the men, basically she 'only beat women', is ludicrous. She probably performed against a more difficult talent pool than Bradman did.

I appear to have opened up a cat of worms a bit with my post highlighting potential issues with Bradman. Sorry. He's fully deserving of his place in the next round. I simply think that (when looking for the greatest ever) each case should get a proper interrogation!

Anyway, a couple of posts suggesting we set a cut-off of circa 1960. I think that's rubbish. We are looking for the Greatest of All Time not the Greatest post-war or greatest since 1960.

As Mike said earlier today, and I did yesterday, judging by absolutes is pointless. You judge them against their peers, in the context of how their achievements were received, and taking into account their opponents. You might naturally find a cut-off before which it is difficult to have enough evidence to make a case which stands up (in cricket pre-1877, in golf pre-1860, in tennis perhaps pre-1920 or so). Of course, tennis has the additional divider of the 'Open Era', but I hope that wouldn't exclude a case being made for Rod Laver.

"basically she 'only beat women', is ludicrous"

well it is kinda true...

I am sure she would have won many heats tbh.. But this is bradmans..

Bradman must have played against about 6 international nations, barely a global sport.

how many nations did the round 1 winner play against chris?

Im not comparing him to the round one winner, Im comparing his talent pool of opponents to that of Navratilova.

I'm being purposefully facetious and playing devil's advocate, it seems Navratilova is being dismissed unfairly in some regards

As i said Bradman is a very strong contender.. I would have picked her out of possibly both of the first rounds tbh

I really cant decide between the two, Id argue they are the two strongest contenders so far

on Navratilova

much as I championed Belinda Clark and Claire Taylor on the cricket HoF thread, I wouldn't champion any of them in a GOAT argument for the simple reason that women's cricket, improved as it is, is simply not played to a high enough standard. However, with Navratilova the situation is very different. It's true that she wouldn't have beaten any top male player, but what needs to be taken into account is that tennis is one of the few (only?) sports to have (almost) as much recognition as their male counterparts. There's a lot more competition there certainly.

Saying "she isn't the greatest tennis player" is a lazy argument, as I think we have to treat women's and men's tennis separately. Otherwise are we saying that women are pretty much banned from this discussion? Apart from maybe horse riders? Daft suggestion...

In this round I voted for Bradman for reasons explained in previous posts, but I'd favour Navratilova over probably all but 2 (3 at the most) of the candidates who've appeared so far (Merckx and Bradman, possibly Borg too).

yep agreed chris

super_realist wrote:So therefore Bradman is only the best Batsmen, and not the best Cricketer?

Just thinking. Bit like saying Ivanisevic is the tennis GOAT in regards to his serve

He is probably the best cricketer by being the best batsman by so much. It's like MfC said, would you criticise Pele because he wasn't the best holding midfield player?

I think that's a bit of a silly argument TBH and clutching at straws. Your others had more merit.

I'm with MfC on this - women's tennis is a serious sport that through the Open era has had good strength in depth, at times the equal of the men's game (not so much at the moment, where the lower half of the top 100 in the WTA is far weaker by comparison with the top players than the equivalent in the ATP). It's not like women's cricket or soccer, which are clearly minority sports compared to their male equivalent.

As such, it is reasonable to discuss Navratilova simply by comparison with her contemporaries, and the conclusion is she was very good indeed. Considering her doubles career as well, I think she stands at the head of women's tennis, a little way above Steffi Graf (who was roughly her equal in legacy in singles). A very strong candidate for consideration as the greatest sportswoman of all time.

However, Bradman still gets my vote, as his record compared to his peers puts him in a different class from almost all of the other candidates so far considered (Merckx is the other who was miles ahead of his peers).

navratilova for me. batting against england back in the day must have been like taking penalties against them nowadays