Opinion Greatest sportsman, or team, of all time?

Remove this Banner Ad

Sir Donald Bradman - test average 99.94 (80 innings)

Cmon now, try and name one other athlete who has dominated the sport in such a statistical manner then Bradman?

The next closest average is 36 points behind and that's a Bangladeshi guy who's only played 23 test innings.

No comparison.
 
mattys123 said:
Sir Donald Bradman - test average 99.94 (80 innings)
Click to expand...
There could be an argument against Bradman being the greatest cricketer of all time. He is defiantly the greatest batsman of all time no question. He has this by a country mile.

To properly gauge his overall greatness a comparison should be made between him and the greatest bowler and the greatest all-rounder. Wisdon did this about 10 years ago and came up as Botham as the greatest of all time due being more influential overall. As there are no bowlers that have been around in the past 10 years who could claim to be better then there contemporaries, this leaves recent all rounders. For my mind the only recent all rounder is Jacques Kallis.

Botham is the better bowler. But Kallis has a great batting average and very respectable bowling figures for an all rounder. For my mind Kallis is a better cricketer then Botham.

Kallis vs Botham

JK - Bat avg: 55.37 IB - Bat avg: 33.54
Bow avg: 32.65 S/R: 69.2 eco: 2.82 Bow avg: 28.4 S/R: 56.9 eco: 2.99

This leaves the question who is the better cricketer? Bradman or Kallis. Probably Bradman just because his batting avg is that much higher them anyone ele. But an argument could be made for Kallis as well.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Knightmare said:
There isn't anyone in the game remotely comparable to Wilt by position. Dwight Howard is a once was and then you've got DeMarcus Cousins who is skilled and big but an innefficient turnover machine who is allergic to playing defence.

You are right regarding guys in the most part being more athletic today - that is the way the game has gone, but to the detriment of the game. Now the NBA is all about 1v1 play (as developed through AAU and high school basketball) and as such guys have developed their athletic attributes, dribbling ability and shooting range with everyone wanting to play out on the perimeter but the result of all this has been a dramatic drop off in the quality of play with the game today substantially worse than the 80s and 90s, and also below the standard of the 60s and 70s with players not bothering to learn the fundamentals of the game and more interested in dunking and shooting 3s.

What is little known is that athletically the bigs of the past is that a number of those guys athletically don't have anyone who since have demonstrated that same speed, agility or leaping ability. With guys like Wilt, Russell and Darryl Dawkins who came into the picture in the 70s historically of all big men the most athletic inside players to play the game. And that period during the 60s and 70s was when the most great bigs were a part of the game and it was an era where team play was at it's best, and low post scoring and low post skills were at its best as well as low post defence, rim protection and rebounding with the freakish things guys were doing at the time.
It's just a lack of appreciation by people who haven't bothered to watch these guys play in detail that feel the players of today while more flashy and watchable if you're going to watch full games, are better which couldn't be further from the truth, with the last 15 years of basketball overall probably the worst we've seen since pre 1960 before the great players started to enter the game.

I understand your perspective in the sense that the game has changes with the rules is completely different and generally the overall improved physical profiles of the players today are better, but dig deeper and research these NBA players of the past in greater depth and you'll find that the NBA is another sport where you should put great stock into what the players of the past achieved, because the greats of the past are greater than the greats of today, and that includes players who played before 1980.

One story regarding Wilt that should resonate with you if you respect the players of the 80s.
This is a famous story by ex NBA coaching great Larry Brown:
On a summer day in the early 1980s, when Brown was coaching at UCLA, Chamberlain showed up at Pauley Pavilion to take part in one of the high-octane pickup games that the arena constantly attracted. "Magic Johnson used to run the games," Brown recalled Tuesday after hearing that Chamberlain, his friend, had died at 63, "and he called a couple of chintzy fouls and a goaltending on Wilt. "So Wilt said: 'There will be no more layups in this gym,' and he blocked every shot after that. That's the truth, I saw it. He didn't let one [of Johnson's] shots get to the rim." Chamberlain would have been in his mid-40s at the time, and he remained in top physical shape until recently.

*you might also like to watch the Wilt youtube clip I posted on page 1 if you still don't completely believe his unequalled greatness in the NBA game.
Click to expand...


Its about here where I would be yelling out "FIIIIIIIIIIGHT"........if we were in the schoolyard!
 
Kappa said:
4 Olympic gold medals competing in women's sport in the 60's wouldn't really be in the top echelon even though she was fantastic.

Phelps has 18 gold medals in a much much much more competitive field
Click to expand...
Phelps was also in a different era where sports medicine excelled.
DF didn't have any of that, also don't believe that she was in many relays and besides if not for the Tokyo incident, who knows what she may have achieved.
Don't understand your distinction in 'women's sport'.
 
Maggie5 said:
Don't understand your distinction in 'women's sport'
Click to expand...
A distinction is needed if only to try and promote women's sport, sad that it is needed but still needed as women in sport need to fight for all the recognition they can get.

Stephanie Gilmore would have to be right up there 6 world surfing titles and still going. You also have great athletes such as Ellyse Perry who represents Australia in both cricket and soccer, Leisel Jones, Torah Bright I could probably keep going this is just of the top of me head. They are all great sportspeople who are up there as the greatest women of all time let alone sports 'people' in general.

Edir: should also add Ann Meares is the most successful track cyclist of all time male or female. With 11 world championships.
 
BlackWhiteBlood said:
A distinction is needed if only to try and promote women's sport, sad that it is needed but still needed as women in sport need to fight for all the recognition they can get.

Stephanie Gilmore would have to be right up there 6 world surfing titles and still going. You also have great athletes such as Ellyse Perry who represents Australia in both cricket and soccer, Leisel Jones, Torah Bright I could probably keep going this is just of the top of me head. They are all great sportspeople who are up there as the greatest women of all time let alone sports 'people' in general.

Edir: should also add Ann Meares is the most successful track cyclist of all time male or female. With 11 world championships.
Click to expand...
Forgot about Anna Meares, yes, she is great considering how she came back after her fall.
Re: distinction, as long as people like you and I keep bringing up these names, doesn't matter if male or female - it is their achievements we applaud/remember.
I brought up Dawn because I believe she left her sport due to politics and we will never know how good she could have been.
 
Phil "The Power" Taylor, 16 time champion of the world.

Looks like an athlete too.:drunk:

WORLDCHAMPS-SF-TAYLOR3.jpg
 
Maggie5 said:
Phelps was also in a different era where sports medicine excelled.
DF didn't have any of that, also don't believe that she was in many relays and besides if not for the Tokyo incident, who knows what she may have achieved.
Don't understand your distinction in 'women's sport'.
Click to expand...

Fraser was in 5 relays over 3 Olympic games for 1 gold medal.

The reality is that male and female sport are very different. The difference was even more drastic in the 60s where female participation was far far lower, which produces a far less competitive and diverse field and makes coming first a lot easier. Is it easier to be the best in a field of 10,000 or 100,000?

Does this mean Fraser wasn't a female swimming great? Of course not. What it does mean though is that her accomplishments are not even in the same league as a Phelps who in the same amount of Olympic games against a much much harder field won more than 4 times the amount of gold medals she did. I don't know why sports medicine excelling helps Phelps specifically.

I would have some of the modern female Australian swimmers way ahead of Fraser too, Libby Trickett and Leisel Jones to name two.
 
Last edited:
Kappa said:
Fraser was in 5 relays over 3 Olympic games for 1 gold medal.

The reality is that male and female sport are very different. The difference was even more drastic in the 60s where female participation was far far lower, which produces a far less competitive and diverse field and makes coming first a lot easier. Is it easier to be the best in a field of 10,000 or 100,000?

Does this mean Fraser wasn't a female swimming great? Of course not. What it does mean though is that her accomplishments are not even in the same league as a Phelps who in the same amount of Olympic games against a much much harder field won more than 4 times the amount of gold medals she did. I don't know why sports medicine excelling helps Phelps specifically.

I would have some of the modern female Australian swimmers way ahead of Fraser too, Libby Trickett and Leisel Jones to name two.
Click to expand...
You don't? How many of those records were wearing that swimsuit?
Diet, coaching, almost a full-time profession, marketing etc etc.
Athletics of today have a bigger advantage and opportunity to excel/develop their natural skills than those in the 40's and 50's in almost any sport.
 
Maggie5 said:
You don't? How many of those records were wearing that swimsuit?
Diet, coaching, almost a full-time profession, marketing etc etc.
Athletics of today have a bigger advantage and opportunity to excel/develop their natural skills than those in the 40's and 50's in almost any sport.
Click to expand...

Records? I didn't even mention records. Phelps won golds with "that swimsuit", but his competitors all had the same suit, so he didn't really get an advantage. It helped him set records, but didn't help him win any more gold (which is the measuring tape I was using)

It being a full-time profession nowadays helps my point immensely, how many of the people Fraser beat in the 60's were part timers barely getting paid that had to do a few hours practice after work? Compare that to 2014 and Leisel Jones has to beat a 1000 elite female athletes who train 6 days a week all day... who has it harder? Fraser or Jones to win a gold?

I agree athletes of today have better opportunities, but we're not directing comparing athletes from different eras, we're comparing their dominance based on results in their own era against people with the same disadvantages/advantages as they had. The facts are Fraser has a MUCH easier field to beat and managed 4 golds in 3 olympics. A fantastic feat, but worthy of the label the greatest of all time? Definitely not. She isn't even the best female Australia swimmer of the past 50 years. And if we're talking male and female Australian swimmers a few names like Hackett Thorpe ring a bell, those guys we're decent athletes.

And trying to say Fraser > Phelps is like saying whoever won our VFL best and fairest is better than Gary Ablett. Sorry to be brutally honest, but it's true. They aren't in the same league.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Knightmare said:
You might find this interesting but Muhammed Ali backed out of a proposed fight with Wilt. It is believed Ali's agent got scared and pulled Ali out.

You should also be aware that the NBA before the 80s was considered no big deal and had little viewership/support given the fact that black players were dominating the league through the 60s/70s and that generally wasn't well received by the white community of the time. It was only in the 80s when the Magic/Bird rivalry started that the NBA really got a substantial national following in the US and internationally not long after.
And as such with Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell playing in the 60s they don't get the respect/acknowledgement they deserve.
Click to expand...

Great post about Wilt. He was a freak athlete.

As for the Ali fight, I'm pretty well versed on boxing history and have never encountered this version of events. Where did you read that? I seem to recall Bob Arum saying something to the effect of Ali intimidating him during negotiations just after Ali lost the FOTC. Although, I remember reading an interview with Wilt in one of Ali's biographies and he wasn't clear about the reason for it not going ahead, but he did seem to rate his chances of causing an upset. Despite his range and size, he wouldn't have had much of a chance against someone as experienced, skillful and adaptable as Ali... it would have made a lot of money though. The fighters who tended to give Ali trouble were swarmers or technicians with a good jab (post-layoff, nobody really gave him trouble pre-layoff)... Wilt would have had a decent jab I'm guessing but he would never be a technician or a counter puncher given his inexperience.

As a side note, Ali's most dominant fight was against his tallest opponent - Ernie Terrell. He was only 6"6, but it was the most dominating performance you'll ever witness where both fighters are quality. Food for thought I guess.
 
Last edited:
hellfire said:
Great post about Wilt. He was a freak athlete.

As for the Ali fight, I'm pretty well versed on boxing history and have never encountered this version of events. Where did you read that? I seem to recall Bob Arum saying something to the effect of Ali intimidating him during negotiations just after Ali lost the FOTC. Although, I remember reading an interview with Wilt in one of Ali's biographies and he wasn't clear about the reason for it not going ahead, but he did seem to rate his chances of causing an upset. Despite his range and size, he wouldn't have had much of a chance against someone as experienced, skillful and adaptable as Ali... it would have made a lot of money though.
Click to expand...

In researching on the net most versions do suggest Wilt was the one to pull out but in one or two Wilt documentaries I have watched (at least one of which is on youtube having watched it on there in the past year) I have heard it stated that Ali's agent pulled him out.

The fact that Wilt was such a physical specimen that people would even bother to discuss the fight with Wilt not a boxer though speaks volumes about him.

Also post basketball if you're a Wilt fan you may be aware that when he eventually retired from basketball (age 36) he took up professional volleyball and became so dominant in volleyball that he is a part of the volleyball hall of fame. And being so incredibly tall and long, with such a freakish leaping and even at that age being so quick and agile, it's not at all surprising, even at that age.

Even as a 50 year old NBA teams were trying to get Wilt out of retirement, such was the level of his physical conditioning. He ultimately decided against it he has stated as he felt that people would expect him to continue to put up 50 point games which even he at 50 recognised he wouldn't.

Also interesting in the Wilt discussion as to how he would go today. You should see the interviews of not only how he thinks he would go today as well as the opinions of those he played against. The prevailing opinion of all is that he would dominant today and through the 90s more even than he did through the 60s. And this is coming not only from team mates but Bill Russell has on countless occasions mentioned this, cackling as he does even at the question as well as his other rivals and coaches who had the pleasure to coach or coach against him.
 
jerry springer said:
Wilt might of been a freak but he didn't have the killer instinct like Jordan.
Click to expand...

Wilt was so dominant he for the vast majority of the time played within himself and actually chose to play a mostly finesse game, when he could easily have gone full Shaq and just physically take over every time down the floor. So that is a valid criticism because he is the most dominant physical specimen the game has seen.

But with Wilt he was so competitive that like Michael if you beat him in anything he would not accept defeat and will want to go again and again until he beats you. Wilt only on occasions when he was challenged brought that side out of himself - so if someone said "you're selfish" he'll go out and lead the league in assist as he did, or in his later years media people would say "you can't score how you used to" so he'd go out and score conservative games of 50 points and then over the following games go back to focusing on getting the defensive end, having during his time with the Lakers being told essentially not to score and put all your energy like Bill Russell into the defensive end of the floor.
It basically with Wilt didn't matter what the challenge was. If you challenge him he'll set out to meet that.
That and if he wanted to hurt someone or do anything even moderately dirty he would have been kicked off the court in a hurry, as if he wanted to hurt someone, he would take them down in one blow, and they're not getting up from it, so as a result being such a freakish specimen he plays the role of gentile giant in that respect, knowing the consequences of being any other way.
 
Knightmare said:
In researching on the net most versions do suggest Wilt was the one to pull out but in one or two Wilt documentaries I have watched (at least one of which is on youtube having watched it on there in the past year) I have heard it stated that Ali's agent pulled him out.

The fact that Wilt was such a physical specimen that people would even bother to discuss the fight with Wilt not a boxer though speaks volumes about him.

Also post basketball if you're a Wilt fan you may be aware that when he eventually retired from basketball (age 36) he took up professional volleyball and became so dominant in volleyball that he is a part of the volleyball hall of fame. And being so incredibly tall and long, with such a freakish leaping and even at that age being so quick and agile, it's not at all surprising, even at that age.

Even as a 50 year old NBA teams were trying to get Wilt out of retirement, such was the level of his physical conditioning. He ultimately decided against it he has stated as he felt that people would expect him to continue to put up 50 point games which even he at 50 recognised he wouldn't.

Also interesting in the Wilt discussion as to how he would go today. You should see the interviews of not only how he thinks he would go today as well as the opinions of those he played against. The prevailing opinion of all is that he would dominant today and through the 90s more even than he did through the 60s. And this is coming not only from team mates but Bill Russell has on countless occasions mentioned this, cackling as he does even at the question as well as his other rivals and coaches who had the pleasure to coach or coach against him.
Click to expand...


Yeah it does speak volumes, although knowing Bob Arum I'm not surprised he entertained it given the likely gate of the event!

Interesting info re: the volleyball! I've never heard that before. I'm not remotely surprised he was dominant in that either though.

Another name worth bringing into the discussion is Wayne Gretzky. I'm not much of a hockey fan but his statistical dominance is enormous.
 
hellfire said:
Yeah it does speak volumes, although knowing Bob Arum I'm not surprised he entertained it given the likely gate of the event!

Interesting info re: the volleyball! I've never heard that before. I'm not remotely surprised he was dominant in that either though.

Another name worth bringing into the discussion is Wayne Gretzky. I'm not much of a hockey fan but his statistical dominance is enormous.
Click to expand...

Gretzky is generally the consensus best hockey player and you're right given as you mentioned his statistical dominance.
 
BlackWhiteBlood said:
There could be an argument against Bradman being the greatest cricketer of all time. He is defiantly the greatest batsman of all time no question. He has this by a country mile.

To properly gauge his overall greatness a comparison should be made between him and the greatest bowler and the greatest all-rounder. Wisdon did this about 10 years ago and came up as Botham as the greatest of all time due being more influential overall. As there are no bowlers that have been around in the past 10 years who could claim to be better then there contemporaries, this leaves recent all rounders. For my mind the only recent all rounder is Jacques Kallis.

Botham is the better bowler. But Kallis has a great batting average and very respectable bowling figures for an all rounder. For my mind Kallis is a better cricketer then Botham.

Kallis vs Botham

JK - Bat avg: 55.37 IB - Bat avg: 33.54
Bow avg: 32.65 S/R: 69.2 eco: 2.82 Bow avg: 28.4 S/R: 56.9 eco: 2.99

This leaves the question who is the better cricketer? Bradman or Kallis. Probably Bradman just because his batting avg is that much higher them anyone ele. But an argument could be made for Kallis as well.
Click to expand...
lol at Botham being goat and even bigger lol at Kallis. Gary Sobers is pretty much universally regarded as the goat all rounder and top 5 player ever. And before you bring up Kallis numbers just remember that he did it in era when the pitches were flatter and the outfields faster. He made his runs at snail pace not to mention the fact that he is everyones choice for most selfish player of the last 20 years - there is a reason why he was never captained SA despite being their clear best player. I wouldn't rate him in the top 5 of his generation let alone top 5 of all time. Kallis might have the stats but he was never a match winner in the way the true greats of his era were - i.e. Lara and even Flintoff when he peaked.
 
I challenge anyone to find a better all round sportsman than AB de Villiers.

- Arguably the best batsman in the world in all forms
- Probably best fielder
- Also SA's wicketkeeper
- holds rcord for fastest every hundred
- shortlist for SA national junior hockey team
- shortlist for SA junior national soccer
- Captain of SA junior national rugby team
- 6 South African school swimming records
- Holds record for 100m dash in SA junior athletics
- Member of SA junior davis cup tennis team
- SA's u19 badminton champion
- Plays golf of scratch

I'm not a big fan of the guy but this list is ridiculous
 
Schraderbrau said:
Gary Sobers is pretty much universally regarded as the goat all rounder and top 5 player ever
Click to expand...

whops forgot all about Sobers, my excuse is Sobers was before my era :). Still think Kallis is a great cricketer. Personality is not a prerequisite for greatness or selection. The point I was trying to make was that we should consider others before automatically instating Bradman as GOAT.
 
BlackWhiteBlood said:
whops forgot all about Sobers, my excuse is Sobers was before my era :). Still think Kallis is a great cricketer. Personality is not a prerequisite for greatness or selection. The point I was trying to make was that we should consider others before automatically instating Bradman as GOAT.
Click to expand...
My big gripe with Kallis is that he wasn't a match winner and makes a big difference to where I rate him. I can think of countless times that Lara and Tendulkar (who were the clear best of that generation imo) won test matches off their own performances - in the case of Lara the WI literally weren't capable of winning unless he had a good one. You can't say the same for Kallis imo. For that reason, I'd take Flintoff (providing he was fit) over Kallis even though he was statistically inferior because he had that capacity to be a matchwinner. I make the same argument when people try to compare Gilchrist to Sangakara. Sanga might average significantly more but Gilchrist was the match winner.

Sobers was before my time as well but he seems to be routinely acknowledged as one of the top 5 batsman ever, not to mention the fact he opened the bowling with a very respectable average, and also could bowl offspin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Black_White
All Things Politics (excluding Israel/Palestine)
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
2K
Black_White
Black_White
TradeDraft
The End of Reddit
Replies
5
Views
731
Black_White
Black_White
stui magpie
Are we a nation of "Good Rule Followers"?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Black_White
Black_White

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top