Undisputed Greatest Of All Time
- Thread starter Paddy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
don bradman
Lucas
Although being serious, Phil Taylor
[quote author=Asim link=topic=42302.msg1199656#msg1199656 date=1287355874]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=42302.msg1199652#msg1199652 date=1287355533]
don bradman
[/quote]
Im sure Sachin would have a little something to say about that!
[/quote]
its similar to comparing ryan giggs and george best. whatever you want to argue or whatever reasons you come up with, best and bradman are in different leagues to giggs and tendulkar.
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=42302.msg1199652#msg1199652 date=1287355533]
don bradman
[/quote]
Im sure Sachin would have a little something to say about that!
[/quote]
its similar to comparing ryan giggs and george best. whatever you want to argue or whatever reasons you come up with, best and bradman are in different leagues to giggs and tendulkar.
valentino rossi
[quote author=Paddy link=topic=42302.msg1199659#msg1199659 date=1287355993]
Gretsky?
[/quote]
Mario
Gretsky?
[/quote]
Mario
Michael Jordan
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=42302.msg1199661#msg1199661 date=1287356424]
[quote author=Asim link=topic=42302.msg1199656#msg1199656 date=1287355874]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=42302.msg1199652#msg1199652 date=1287355533]
don bradman
[/quote]
Im sure Sachin would have a little something to say about that!
[/quote]
its similar to comparing ryan giggs and george best. whatever you want to argue or whatever reasons you come up with, best and bradman are in different leagues to giggs and tendulkar.
[/quote]
I agree.
It's about doing well in your own era when compared to your contemporaries.
There arguments you could use to explain Don Bradman's ridiculously impossible average.
* Statistically he played in the easiest era to bat.
* He scored most of his runs against one Country. (Eg Tendulkar and Lara average in the 80s against Sri Lanka after having played a considerable number of games)
* He never had to deal with fixture congestion and fatigue.
* He didn't have to deal with reverse swing, wrong'un etc.. and deal with the variations around in the current era in terms of bowler types, and dramatically different pitches in different countries etc.
* There was not concept of grass on the outfield till early 50s - which meant the shine on the ball and hence the conventional swing was lost with-in 5 or 10 overs of bowling.
etc etc...
I have heard all these arguments and some more...
But he can only play against the opposition he had. Given that, He averaged much much higher than what any other batsmen Averaged in his era. He scored so heavily compared to others. No other batsman has achieved that margin of difference.
The closest we get to that was the 90s. It was the second toughest decade to bat in, statistically, and only two batsmen averaged in the 50s. Lara and Tendulkar. Lara averaged mid 50s an Tendulkar averaged high 50s -close to 60. It is indeed an astonishing achievement from those two, but it pales in comparison when you look at how much Don Bradman stood ahead of other batsmen in his era.
[quote author=Asim link=topic=42302.msg1199656#msg1199656 date=1287355874]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=42302.msg1199652#msg1199652 date=1287355533]
don bradman
[/quote]
Im sure Sachin would have a little something to say about that!
[/quote]
its similar to comparing ryan giggs and george best. whatever you want to argue or whatever reasons you come up with, best and bradman are in different leagues to giggs and tendulkar.
[/quote]
I agree.
It's about doing well in your own era when compared to your contemporaries.
There arguments you could use to explain Don Bradman's ridiculously impossible average.
* Statistically he played in the easiest era to bat.
* He scored most of his runs against one Country. (Eg Tendulkar and Lara average in the 80s against Sri Lanka after having played a considerable number of games)
* He never had to deal with fixture congestion and fatigue.
* He didn't have to deal with reverse swing, wrong'un etc.. and deal with the variations around in the current era in terms of bowler types, and dramatically different pitches in different countries etc.
* There was not concept of grass on the outfield till early 50s - which meant the shine on the ball and hence the conventional swing was lost with-in 5 or 10 overs of bowling.
etc etc...
I have heard all these arguments and some more...
But he can only play against the opposition he had. Given that, He averaged much much higher than what any other batsmen Averaged in his era. He scored so heavily compared to others. No other batsman has achieved that margin of difference.
The closest we get to that was the 90s. It was the second toughest decade to bat in, statistically, and only two batsmen averaged in the 50s. Lara and Tendulkar. Lara averaged mid 50s an Tendulkar averaged high 50s -close to 60. It is indeed an astonishing achievement from those two, but it pales in comparison when you look at how much Don Bradman stood ahead of other batsmen in his era.
Tiger Woods
Rossi
Schumacher
Michael Jordan
would all be good shouts...
I would have added Federer in there if Nadal didn't come around.
Jamie Dwyer for hockey?
Rossi
Schumacher
Michael Jordan
would all be good shouts...
I would have added Federer in there if Nadal didn't come around.
Jamie Dwyer for hockey?
Tour de France and Lance Armstrong - but it really is just one event he dominated. Not the entire sport of cycling or anything.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=42302.msg1199721#msg1199721 date=1287382620]
I think Fangio would be a better cqndidate for best in F1 though.
[/quote]
I doubt it mate.
Schumacher may be a prick on the racetrack (he is one very humble and magnanimous guy, when he is not in a car trying to win), and his latest comeback may be a flop, but the guy was so phenomenally successful it is unbelievable.
Everybody discounts his achievement for the fact that Ferrari were so dominant - but he did not jump ship to a team that was already successful. He was actually one of the main reasons why Ferrari got back to the top after about 20 years of not winning a WDC. Credit should be given to him for believing in himself to get them back to the top, in an era when drivers jumped contracts to drive the best car they could. It takes a special talent to make it work - see Villenueve at BAR.
The Ferrari in 1996 was such an utter dog, but the results Schumacher got with that car was just mind-blowing. He took the challenge to Hill and Villenueve in a vastly inferior car. Villenueve in my opinion should have won the 1997 WDC very easily. It should have never gone down to the last race with Schumacher in the lead in the championship. Of course, what happened after that was a huge shame. He did as much as it was possible to make Eddie Ervine win the WDC in 1999 (Schumacher missed 5 or 6 gps that year because of fracturing his legs)....Eddie commented that Schumacher is not only the best driver, but he is also the best second driver to have as a wing-man when you are fighting for a championship. Eddie almost won it to, and he would have been one of the most undeserving WDCs ever, if he had done.
From 1993 to 2006 - i don't think any driver could lay a claim to being as competitive as Schumacher. He put cars in positions where they clearly didn't belong. When he had the inferior car, he still found a way to challenge and when he had a superior car it was nigh on impossible to touch him.
I think Fangio would be a better cqndidate for best in F1 though.
[/quote]
I doubt it mate.
Schumacher may be a prick on the racetrack (he is one very humble and magnanimous guy, when he is not in a car trying to win), and his latest comeback may be a flop, but the guy was so phenomenally successful it is unbelievable.
Everybody discounts his achievement for the fact that Ferrari were so dominant - but he did not jump ship to a team that was already successful. He was actually one of the main reasons why Ferrari got back to the top after about 20 years of not winning a WDC. Credit should be given to him for believing in himself to get them back to the top, in an era when drivers jumped contracts to drive the best car they could. It takes a special talent to make it work - see Villenueve at BAR.
The Ferrari in 1996 was such an utter dog, but the results Schumacher got with that car was just mind-blowing. He took the challenge to Hill and Villenueve in a vastly inferior car. Villenueve in my opinion should have won the 1997 WDC very easily. It should have never gone down to the last race with Schumacher in the lead in the championship. Of course, what happened after that was a huge shame. He did as much as it was possible to make Eddie Ervine win the WDC in 1999 (Schumacher missed 5 or 6 gps that year because of fracturing his legs)....Eddie commented that Schumacher is not only the best driver, but he is also the best second driver to have as a wing-man when you are fighting for a championship. Eddie almost won it to, and he would have been one of the most undeserving WDCs ever, if he had done.
From 1993 to 2006 - i don't think any driver could lay a claim to being as competitive as Schumacher. He put cars in positions where they clearly didn't belong. When he had the inferior car, he still found a way to challenge and when he had a superior car it was nigh on impossible to touch him.
Senna was better.
Google some of his qualy laps at monaco, he was awesome.
Tennis. Sampras?
There were great riders before lance. Forgive the spelling but induran, merkcx, hinault
Google some of his qualy laps at monaco, he was awesome.
Tennis. Sampras?
There were great riders before lance. Forgive the spelling but induran, merkcx, hinault
Foggy was up there too.
NHL - Gretzky on points, Marion on ability
MLB - Ruth on stats, Mantle on ability
NBA - Jordan, full stop.
Swimming - that American guy
Running - Usain Bolt
MLB - Ruth on stats, Mantle on ability
NBA - Jordan, full stop.
Swimming - that American guy
Running - Usain Bolt
Emmitt on points, Barry on ability 
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=42302.msg1199776#msg1199776 date=1287389089]
Emmitt on points, Barry on ability
[/quote]
I couldn't pick in the NFL b/c it's far more of a 'team' game ... Jerry vs Joe Cool vs LT vs Deacon etc etc
Emmitt on points, Barry on ability
[/quote]
I couldn't pick in the NFL b/c it's far more of a 'team' game ... Jerry vs Joe Cool vs LT vs Deacon etc etc
Which QB at his best would you pick to play a game to save your life? Joe Montana maybe?
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=42302.msg1199838#msg1199838 date=1287394633]
Which QB at his best would you pick to play a game to save your life? Joe Montana maybe?
[/quote]
Well depends ... if it was a two minute drill, I may take Elway ... but a game? I'd take Joe Cool - but in a few years, that may be Tom Brady.
Which QB at his best would you pick to play a game to save your life? Joe Montana maybe?
[/quote]
Well depends ... if it was a two minute drill, I may take Elway ... but a game? I'd take Joe Cool - but in a few years, that may be Tom Brady.
[quote author=Rouge Penguin link=topic=42302.msg1199752#msg1199752 date=1287386579]
Senna was better.
[/quote]
Senna definitely was the master of qualifying. But come race-day Prost was better. It was proven in their days at McLaren. The score reads Prost 1-1 Senna, in their two years in the same team, but Prost held an edge on the race day. He was able to string together a consistent number of laps at high pace, while Senna had the edge over him in terms of outright pace over a single lap.
Senna was better.
[/quote]
Senna definitely was the master of qualifying. But come race-day Prost was better. It was proven in their days at McLaren. The score reads Prost 1-1 Senna, in their two years in the same team, but Prost held an edge on the race day. He was able to string together a consistent number of laps at high pace, while Senna had the edge over him in terms of outright pace over a single lap.