v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 1

First topic message reminder :

The final two groups of round 2 played out yesterday and group 7 proved to be an extremely close encounter between the eventual two qualifiers Tiger Woods and Wayne Gretzky who both secured 27 votes each. Elsewhere in the tournament Mohammed Ali progressed as group 8 winner with 52% of the vote closely followed by Don Bradman who also makes the last 16 with 33% of the vote.

We kick off the last 16 today with a blockbuster group of legends from tennis, boxing, athletics and cricket.

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

Please leave a comment as to why you voted.

bhb001 wrote:I can't understand this adulation of Federer. I am obviously missing something.

you should see the tennis boards, the fanaticism of most posters for Smuggles is overwhelming

bhb001 wrote:I can't understand this adulation of Federer. I am obviously missing something ....

What I can't understand is the indifference shown the other day to Laver whom I would class as the tennis GOAT.

I can see why the Federer love happens. He is a (the) dominant figure in his sport and also at his best makes the game look effortless, I cant think anyone has looked more elegant playing the game. The guy has both substance and style, not too shabby really.
That said the tennis board is full of insane stalker type nutjobs so I wouldnt take their views too seriously.

Diggers wrote:I can see why the Federer love happens. He is a (the) dominant figure in his sport and also at his best makes the game look effortless, I cant think anyone has looked more elegant palying the game. The guy has both substance and style, not too shabby really.
That said the tennis board is full of insane stalker type nutjobs so I wouldnt take their views too seriously.

Ouch. We're not all that bad, Diggers.

That said, time to slightly undermine my point by voting for Federer. The group is ridiculously strong though, and I'd prefer to see them all go through, particularly SRR but it doesn't look likely. I think all four of these guys could've gotten very deep with a better draw; surely Bradman, Federer and SRR are contenders to win the whole thing?

I'm going to save my overall Federer reasoning for a later round, but suffice to say he just about edges out SRR for me in this round. Bradman's statistics blow my mind, as do Bolt's performances, but for me they don't quite match the other two.

Sorry Silver, Im sure there are exceptions....to the rule......
I can only think it must be an incredibly frustrating board to post on, there are clearly some people who are incredibly knowledgeable about the game,but are equally utterly blinkered when it comes to having a vaguely objective view.
Everyday seems to be a bit like groundhog day on there.

Sorry Silver, Im sure there are exceptions....to the rule......
I can only think it must be an incredibly frustrating board to post on, there are clearly some people who are incredibly knowledgeable about the game,but are equally utterly blinkered when it comes to having a vaguely objective view.
Everyday seems to be a bit like groundhog day on there.

Sounds like Indian fans and Tendulkar?

Fed has style..

He looks like ALi G on a bad day!!

He loves the gold trim gangster Trackies!

No offense taken mate, all tongue in cheek

It can be a bit that way at times, I have to hold my tongue at points because it does get annoying to see constant championing of favourite players, and the inability of some posters to understand that you can follow and enjoy watching multiple players. Same as most boards I guess, but perhaps exacerbated by the current dominance of the top four guys. There are some great posters there though

Yeah if you go on the tennis forum during Wimby- You are taken out by a pack of forum gaurd dogs within seconds. They come from all angles..

Tough crowd yo

Have gone for Bradman, love Sugar Ray dearly but cannot ignore just how far in front of the chasing pack Sir Don is in his chosen field. Am by no means a cricket obsessive but am a fan and have read enough about the man to know that those who saw him live attest there was nobody to touch him, and has not been since.

Don’t hold bodyline against him either, the tactics whilst legal at the time were clearly far from within the spirit of the game and was never likely to be permitted to continue long term and even in these circumstances he managed to average the kind of score that any batsman would be happy with over a series. Says everything about the man that England at the time felt the need to employ such tactics solely to deal with his threat. Hope Ray makes it through but you have to vote for the bloke who you feel deserves it and in this instance that is Bradman.

mystiroakey wrote:Yeah if you go on the tennis forum during Wimby- You are taken out by a pack of forum gaurd dogs within seconds. They come from all angles..

Tough crowd yo

They absolutely cannot take anyone having a dig at Federer or Nadal either.

Gonna go for Bradman because i believe he should reach the very late stages of this competition

bhb001 wrote:I can't understand this adulation of Federer. I am obviously missing something. Plumped for Bradman as an enduring legend

Not sure that its about adulation, more a realistic appraisal of his achievements. I don't particularly like the guy but I recognise what he's achieved in the game is immense and (to me) he's surpassed all the other tennis GOAT contenders.

I'd be very interested to see how many people actually played cricket in the 1930's, a sport that was confined to about 6 countries 4 of whom didn't take it massively seriously.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'd be very interested to see how many people actually played cricket in the 1930's, a sport that was confined to about 6 countries 4 of whom didn't take it massively seriously.

Hundreds of millions have tried their hand at it since (thanks largely to India and Pakistan) in some capacity and none of them have dominated it within their own era the way Bradman did. That's what so much of his greatness rests upon.

One thing which does get discarded a little too often with Bradman is that he played in a time of uncovered pitches, bigger boundaries and smaller bats. In modern times, cricket has tended to be a batsman's game with most angles loaded in their favour, but this wasn't really the case when Bradman played.

People talk about Bradman 'only' averaging 56 in the Bodyline series (still better than all but a handful who have played since over their whole careers). I think it's worth noting that, at the time, such a style of bowling was seen as brand new and revolutionary, and hadn't been seen before. And still Bradman managed what would be considered a very, very good return against it by anyone else's standards. Obviously, when the likes of Tendulkar, Ponting etc were emerging, such a style of bowling had, by then, been commonplace for a long, long time and their 'cricket upbringing', so to speak, would have included playing against it and preparing for it. Bradman didn't have that luxury, but still returned an average above 50 against it when it came out of nowhere. Makes me believe that, had it not been outlawed, he'd have got to grips with it more and more over time and just continued to murder all bowling attacks he faced.

Would also add to that Chris that the batsmen who deal with short bowling also do so without the leg side fields that take the hook and pull shot out of the equation and with protective gear such as helmets, body padding etc, the likes of which Bradman can only dream of. Give Don the advantages his modern counterparts enjoy or remove such advantages from those guys and my guess is Bradman still stands head and shoulders above them just as he did with those who faced the same conditions he did.

I'm talking strictly about when he was around Chris how many people actually played cricket to a decent level?

Redgrave gets labelled as participating in a minority but there were 20 different nations who medalled at the Sydney olympics which is about par for the course. There have been 81 different nationalities of boxing world champions and countless more who have challenged for a title.

When we talk about minority sports well cricket in the 30's is probably the most minority one of them all but excelling in such a sport seems to set Bradman aside from those who excelled in sports where the participation was far far higher. Bradman seems to be subject to different criteria to everyone else.

It is going to be harder for a Tendulkar or Lara to dominate the sport when bowlers are better than they were and the levels of participation have increased, the one thing I find most interesting is that his talent compared to them is never mentioned just that one statistic.

Gone for Federer. Effortless brilliance.

Oh and a fit missus!

You been specsavers recently hIBBZ?

Hibbz wrote:Gone for Federer. Effortless brilliance.

Oh and a fit missus!

Fat and frumpy

Ha ha, let's not go through it all again.

Imperial Ghosty wrote: the one thing I find most interesting is that his talent compared to them is never mentioned just that one statistic.

Well, I suppose it's difficult to compare his talent to the likes of Tendulkar without having seen Bradman bat, but I would say that virtually all historians of the game, including those who DID see Bradman play, like Richie Benaud, rate Bradman as the greatest.
The thing is, though, that the statistic mentioned is a pretty good demonstration of Bradman's talent. Unless you argue that all players, apart from Bradman, were rubbish until the 1990s, and that then, somehow, the standard of cricket somehow increased to a point at which averaging 55 is as good as averaging 99, it is very difficult to dismiss that statistic.
I would just point out, however, on the issue of talent that Bradman's main talent was his mentality, his desire and determinatio to make runs. A number of bowlers from Bradman's time thought that, technically, there were batsmen superior to him, but that mentally, he was streets ahead of anyone who had played the game. Probably he still is.

That's true, Hoggy. From a purely technical perspective, a lot of Australians thought that Victor Trumper was the 'better' batsman between him and the Don but there's no doubt that Bradman was a far, far greater player than Trumper ever was.

You could compare it to the Waugh twins in modern times. Mark Waugh the natural talent of the pair and the one whose style was easy on the eyes in comparison to the slow-starting, gritty Steve Waugh, but Steve went on to become the far more successful, consistent and greater player overall.

88Chris05 wrote:That's true, Hoggy. From a purely technical perspective, a lot of Australians thought that Victor Trumper was the 'better' batsman between him and the Don but there's no doubt that Bradman was a far, far greater player than Trumper ever was.

You could compare it to the Waugh twins in modern times. Mark Waugh the natural talent of the pair and the one whose style was easy on the eyes in comparison to the slow-starting, gritty Steve Waugh, but Steve went on to become the far more successful, consistent and greater player overall.

Nice and pretty fair analogy.

Bradman cut out a lot of the risky shots, never hit the ball in the air that much, but still managed to score at a very quick rate. Just shows you that cricket is a bit of a percentages games. Most of the top guys seem to ditch the hook shot for instance, too high risk.

Bradmans contempories were too busy worrying about consumption and trench foot

Stella wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:That's true, Hoggy. From a purely technical perspective, a lot of Australians thought that Victor Trumper was the 'better' batsman between him and the Don but there's no doubt that Bradman was a far, far greater player than Trumper ever was.

You could compare it to the Waugh twins in modern times. Mark Waugh the natural talent of the pair and the one whose style was easy on the eyes in comparison to the slow-starting, gritty Steve Waugh, but Steve went on to become the far more successful, consistent and greater player overall.

Nice and pretty fair analogy.

Can I nominate the Waugh brothers as the subject GOAT sporting quote? I forget who the (inevitably Aussie) commentators in question were, but the exchange went:

"For my money, Mark Waugh is the best all rounder in the Southern Hemisphere"
"Strewth, mate! He's not even the best all rounder in his own family!"

Very tough decision but went with Federer in the end. Bradman was a very close 2nd.

Federer all day long.

I think Bradman gets the nostalgic, patriotic (all Antipodeans seem to have a built in automatom to vote for him), it's-damn-right-sacreligious-not-to-vote-for-him vote. He is after all 'The Don'. Say it in hushed revered tones and let that name and all it means wash over you.

Kind of like Ali.

Whilst he is a genuine contendor (Bradman), in my book he would be no more than top 16 at best. Probably less than that. I've already spoken in detail about the weaknesses in his claim so I'll just add the following. If this had been a global poll would Bradman even make a top 16? I bet in most countries of the world he would be unknown. In that regard he is no different to a variety of sportsman who play niche sports. I except the participation numbers in cricket are huge (primarily becaus of one country) but the game itself has not taken hold beyond a handful of countries. No Kabbadi player could ever be the GOAT. Likewise with cricket.

Furthermore, cricket does not fit the criteria of being athletic enough or indeed professional enough for me to herald from it's ranks the GOAT - and I'm talking about modern cricket. So what of a game played almost a hundred years ago between just two nations? Do people really believe such a man can be considered the Greatest Sportsman of All Time?

For me this one is between SRR and Federer - two top five candidates.



emancipator

Federer

Kind of surprised Bolt doesnt get as much recogntion on here. Is it because he is still active or unpopular or something?

Surely his claim in being the undisputed fastest and his performances in the last two Olympics are more definative than Bradman for example, whos stats will always be disputed on grounds of his competition and the speculation how he would do in a more global and competitive cricket environment?

Bolt for me doesnt really have any question marks. The only thing that can stop him is somebody faster coming along.

Also re Bolt he has had to beat guys who are also some of the quickest ever to win. Blake, Gay, Powell..all right up there in the top 5 fastest ever. It's a tough era and he dominates it utterly ... bar one false start.

Diggers wrote:Also re Bolt he has had to beat guys who are also some of the quickest ever to win. Blake, Gay, Powell..all right up there in the top 5 fastest ever. It's a tough era and he dominates it utterly ... bar one false start.

Do you really think the current top sprinters - including Bolt - are clean?

Diggers wrote:I can see why the Federer love happens. He is a (the) dominant figure in his sport and also at his best makes the game look effortless, I cant think anyone has looked more elegant playing the game. The guy has both substance and style, not too shabby really.
That said the tennis board is full of insane stalker type nutjobs so I wouldnt take their views too seriously.

There's insane stalker type nutjobs for Fed, Nadal, Djoko and Murray (actually the Murray fans are quite normal) so it evens itself out.

Federer is a very fine player - one of the top few tennis playes ever. But does he tower in status over all other tennis players? For me it has to be Bradman.

I fully agree Emancipator, many seem to vote for Bradman because they think they should, there's being in a niche sport like rowing but cricket takes it to even lower levels of niche.

cricket is the second most particpated sport in the world dude.

yes i realise thats due to India. however its about as niche as diet coke

It is purely a commonwealth sport it is not a world sport, you can't ignore how much India distorts the figures and how many of those simply play the fake form of 20twenty?

you called it a niche sport compared to rowing.

rowing is very much a niche sport due the factors you need to row.

you need water, you need a boat..

I didnt ignore India- i mentioned India

If we call Cricket a niche sport, baseball and american football beat it as 'niche', due to less players and less international representation

There are on average 20 different nations who medal at each olympics, top class cricket is confined to 9 countries, the participation of India in 20twenty makes it seem a bigger sport than it is. Much in the same way Rugby is fairly isolated but not to the same degree.

so almost every sport is niche is it?

come on fella

BTW i think you have missinterpreted 20/20

India had the participation before 20/20 existed.. its just become the most popular format there.


PS: If you couldnt tell I am only up due to watching Cricket

There are a few high profile sports that are too confined to certain regions or countries for me to consider there sportsmen great with Baseball, American Football and Cricket being the most high profile three.

Cricket is broader than american football and baseball and much higher representaion, and global representaion(WC's etc)..

The sport is also truely trying to break out of the commonwealth mould.. holland, ireland etc are trying to get more involved. just because t20 is flying this flag the most doesnt mean t20 isnt cricket. Compare that to north american sports..

Cricket could be compared to ice hockey, rugby and basketball- not american footy and baseball IMO

Sorry but t20 is not cricket, watching a slogger throw his bat around is not what the game is meant to be about.

It is cricket- yes. Thats fact. Your using your own very loose opinion saying it isnt.

Secondly- all the t20 teams play ODI's(50 over) anyway. And when we talk about associate teams ODI's are there main focus

That would be like saying Rugby 7's is proper rugby or 5 a-side football is proper football, t20 is a cheap fake imitation of the actual sport.