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"

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

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

Not sure this was true in Bradman's era. 1980s and 90s on the other hand...

Something I say annoy you Mystique?
Afraid its an ignorance thing. I'd never heard of Bradman, and his 'statistics' do not wow me in the same way that Navratilova's Slams records does. Simply phenomenal!

no it was the england comment that made me feel angry and abit sad!!

truth hurts sometimes bud

yeah allways cuts the deepest!

You raise an interesting issue about women's sport.

After giving it some thought I think that, as with men's sport, participation/ interest is the key (in this case whether people should be more interested isn't that relevant)

Thus, we can look at women Olympians, tennis players etc. almost equally (judging them against their female contemporaries rather than against men, which would be illogical). But cricketers, footballers, rugby players etc. aren't really relevant as MFC says, because they continue to have niche interest and not a huge amount of participation.

ok you say that- and yes i voted phil taylor. but couldnt we say that womens soccer(yes i used that term because it is high particpation in the states) is on par with mens darts??


just playing devils advocate here - because i know nothing about womens footy and wouldnt vote for one...

This is the 308th comment on this thread alone. Regardless of the outcome, we really have carried on the 606 spirit. Some really great debating going on, and we have another 52 names to go!

This one is the easiest of the lot, Bradman far and away.

I somewhat question the wisdom of pitting people from team sports against those that competed in individual sports.

Yes Bradman was only a batsman, not a bowler or an all rounder however to belittle his achievements and contribution to his sport because he didnt do this or that, is a cheap shot that can be leveled at any competitor in any team sport.

So I voted for bradman because he comes from our half of the planet.

mystiroakey wrote:ok you say that- and yes i voted phil taylor. but couldnt we say that womens soccer(yes i used that term because it is high particpation in the states) is on par with mens darts??


just playing devils advocate here - because i know nothing about womens footy and wouldnt vote for one...

That is fair (although how big is women's football in the States, really? Maybe its on a par with men's in the states, but its not big in the wider picture really). Hence the issues with Darts. As good as Taylor is you really can't realistically crown him the greatest sportsman of all time.

aucklandlaurie wrote: I somewhat question the wisdom of pitting people from team sports against those that competed in individual sports.

Yes Bradman was only a batsman, not a bowler or an all rounder however to belittle his achievements and contribution to his sport because he didnt do this or that, is a cheap shot that can be leveled at any competitor in any team sport.

So I voted for bradman because he comes from our half of the planet.

Voting for someone simply because you live within the geographical locale of a long dead cricketers grave is surely a far worse reason than not voting for Bradman on the basis of the questions which surround him.

It's called GOAT, not Greatest Sportsman You Happen To Live Near.

super_realist wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: I somewhat question the wisdom of pitting people from team sports against those that competed in individual sports.

Yes Bradman was only a batsman, not a bowler or an all rounder however to belittle his achievements and contribution to his sport because he didnt do this or that, is a cheap shot that can be leveled at any competitor in any team sport.

So I voted for bradman because he comes from our half of the planet.

Voting for someone simply because you live within the geographical locale of a long dead cricketers grave is surely a far worse reason than not voting for Bradman on the basis of the era in which he played.

It's called GOAT, not Greatest Sportsman You Happen To Live Near.

I would agree with this.

Although I suspect both Borg yesterday and Navratilova today have benefited from the strong tennis presence on this board.

Two wrongs don't make a right though. Auckland's reason for voting for Bradman (if he was being at all serious) is more than a little silly.

There's a worryingly high number of wresting fans on the site too. I hope this doesn't mean that Hulk Hogan or Kendo Nagasaki is going to be voted on.

We're nothing to be worried over SR.
Though to ease your concerns there are no wrestlers in the 64 (although several are certainly 'athletic')

Shelsey93 wrote:
how big is women's football in the States, really? Maybe its on a par with men's in the states

Women's football is almost more popular than men's in the US. It simply depends by what standard you measure it...

super_realist wrote:There's a worryingly high number of wresting fans on the site too. I hope this doesn't mean that Hulk Hogan or Kendo Nagasaki is going to be voted on.

Surely The Rock is a better bet for G.O.A.T.?

Of any wrestlers it'd be Kurt Angle or Brock Lesnar purely due to that they took part in 'competitive' matches, but none will be included.

GOAT list b hollywood action star you mean?

Btw shouldnt wrestling be in the film and tv section?

I was only joking.

Mike Selig wrote:

super_realist wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: I somewhat question the wisdom of pitting people from team sports against those that competed in individual sports.

Yes Bradman was only a batsman, not a bowler or an all rounder however to belittle his achievements and contribution to his sport because he didnt do this or that, is a cheap shot that can be leveled at any competitor in any team sport.

So I voted for bradman because he comes from our half of the planet.

Voting for someone simply because you live within the geographical locale of a long dead cricketers grave is surely a far worse reason than not voting for Bradman on the basis of the era in which he played.

It's called GOAT, not Greatest Sportsman You Happen To Live Near.

I would agree with this.

Although I suspect both Borg yesterday and Navratilova today have benefited from the strong tennis presence on this board.

Two wrongs don't make a right though. Auckland's reason for voting for Bradman (if he was being at all serious) is more than a little silly.

Thanks Mike,
You did grasp the message.

Posters seam to have a variety of partisan grounds upon which they determine which way they vote.

I thought an absurd example such as "my half of the planet" would make this patently obvious, yes, it probably was a bit silly.

mystiroakey wrote:Btw shouldnt wrestling be in the film and tv section?

It'll be in whichever section I choose it to be ta very muchly.

I'm a bit gutted there's no Wrestlers in. I was looking forward to a Hulk Hogan vs Roger Federer debate or similar, would have been great fun!

That would have been hilarious.
It's good fun all this debating. Perhaps a debate about putting wrestling in the childrens section might be in order?

Or SR in the naughty corner can be arranged as well?

Hero wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Btw shouldnt wrestling be in the film and tv section?

It'll be in whichever section I choose it to be ta very muchly.

the boss has spoken ..

fair play though!

Don't be afraid of Hero. He's just a big Alan Carr shaped bear

VTR wrote:I'm a bit gutted there's no Wrestlers in. I was looking forward to a Hulk Hogan vs Roger Federer debate or similar, would have been great fun!

I know Hogan literally had no moves (or IMO not much talent in general either athletially or with the mic) but he'd still definitely kick Federer's arse

VTR wrote:I'm a bit gutted there's no Wrestlers in. I was looking forward to a Hulk Hogan vs Roger Federer debate or similar, would have been great fun!

I know Hogan literally had no moves (or IMO not much talent in general either athletially or with the mic) but he'd still definitely kick Federer's arse

Agree with s-r, the debates on these have been great. I was skeptical when I saw Gavin Hastings on day one but that's half the fun. A few wild cards in the 64 just adds to the debate.

The Cricket and Tennis fans going at each other today was all healthy and somewhat inevitable given they are very active sections on here.

Being a huge football and boxing fan I'd love to vote for either Zidane or Greb but it wouldn't be right in this company. Zidane is one of the finest footballers I've ever seen but I couldn't make an argument in support of him being the greatest player ever in his own sphere, which I think is necessary to be the GOAT.

Greb's record is phenomenal and there is a thin argument for naming him the greatest boxer of all time. Alas I would have a few ahead of him and this coupled with the lack of footage and lack of global notoriety means he has to miss out.

Which leaves me with the 2 I know least about. I wouldn't have heard of Bradman if it weren't for some old sods harping on about him on the boxing forum. I have no interest in or understanding of cricket but can appreciate how good he must have been from reading the above. Still I cant vote for a cricketer knowing nothing about the sport and my vote goes to Martina.

Very much doubt he's been included but for his influence on MMA, Royce Gracie deserves a very strong mention.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

VTR wrote:I'm a bit gutted there's no Wrestlers in. I was looking forward to a Hulk Hogan vs Roger Federer debate or similar, would have been great fun!

I know Hogan literally had no moves (or IMO not much talent in general either athletially or with the mic) but he'd still definitely kick Federer's arse

Hulk Hogan...just a poor mans Catweasel.

Glad to see Navy getting some love

It was a very close one between SDB and Martina today!

However I saw LK's defending of Martina, and that tipped the balance in her favour

It Must Be Love wrote:It was a very close one between SDB and Martina today!

However I saw LK's defending of Martina, and that tipped the balance in her favour

As long as it didn't tip the velvet.

Really wanted to go for greb after the encyclopedic knowledge of the boxing boards have brought him to life with their tales. But unfortunately bradman takes it for me. A tip of the hat to the human windmill though and to this forum because it I wouldn't really know about him

I agree, I knew nothing of Harry Greb prior to this board but its due to one man that I now do and I thank him for that.
Windy

Navratilova is a worthy candidate to go through to the next round as well. But my vote goes firmly to Bradman. Mainly on the basis that in a sport with a very long history and numerous greats his genius is unrivalled. No one else comes close to him.

On the whole excellent debate in this round, well done to all that participated.

Two extremely worthy candidates proceed to the next round, and it is a shame indeed that Harry Greb should suffer this draw.

Justice was done, however. The Don marches on.

hehe the don marches on.. Good debate

Fists / other mods

Presumably the next round will see the candidates re-organised so that Navratilova isn't in the same batch of 4 as Bradman?

As you said, two very worthy candidates moving forward (as with day 2), and I can see plenty of groups of 4 where Navratilova would merit my vote - she wouldn't be my overall GOAT, but certainly would be in my top 16 and possibly top 8.

I didn't realise two went through to the next round, that makes things much fairer. I think this could be the strongest group of 4 that we get too.

Yes, very good debate, cucumber sandwiches and all.

Aren't these groups drawn randomly, so we could have Tiger, Ali and Pele in the same group.

Now that would be fun!

I was surprised by the lack of support for Zidane.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I was surprised by the lack of support for Zidane.

I'm surprised he got as much as he did, but then we know that I'm not a big fan of Zizou

Errr 2 go through!!!

didnt know that!!

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I was surprised by the lack of support for Zidane.

I'm surprised he got as much as he did, but then we know that I'm not a big fan of Zizou

I know he was a nutter and all, still a quality player.