Sport Today

by **Mike Pric** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 04:52:57

You know, there is one thing I think pretty much all of the cricketing
world agrees on and that is that The Don was a pretty damn good
player. It is quite amazing as an Australian to surf the web and see
loving tributes to the great man coming citizens of every cricket
playing nation on the globe (most especially India).

Remember how Bradman recently made it into the "top 10 sportsmen of
the century"? Was I really the only one who was disgusted that The
Don was anything but number 1? I just can't accept that anyone has
ever topped him.

Perhaps I am biased as an Australian, but when I compare Sir Donald
with the others who usually float around the top of these lists (Ali,
Lewis, Pele, Jordan etc) I can never see how these people can even
hold a candle to the great man's sheer *** of his game.

My girlfriend is an American and knows virtually nothing about cricket
(though I am trying to change all that) and one of the most
frustrating things is trying to explain just why averaging nearly 100
is so flippin' amazing. I can't even wrap my head around Sir Donald's
achievements and if I didn't know it were true I would think that it
was a fairy story. People like Michael Jordan and others have been
superstars of their field, but I can comprehend them as simply very,
very,very good. There have been others who come close to their
***.

I think a big part of the problem is (epecially for America) is that
their sports are generally very quick and even "throw-away" in nature.
I just can't look at a baseball player hitting three home runs in a
row as being amazing as a batsman scoring a double century. Three good
swings vs hours and hours of concentration and work.

I really think if the whole world understood cricket properly, Sir
Donald would be the undisputed greatest sportsman ever.

Please excuse this rather meandering, disjointed post. It is more of
an outpouring of ponderings than anything else.

by **Ron Knigh** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 06:09:54

[snipping most of his ponderings]

Quote:

> I think a big part of the problem is (epecially for America) is that
> their sports are generally very quick and even "throw-away" in nature.
> I just can't look at a baseball player hitting three home runs in a
> row as being amazing as a batsman scoring a double century. Three good
> swings vs hours and hours of concentration and work.

There is no one-game batting performance in baseball that can be
compared with hitting a century. Since in baseball the advantage is
with the pitching, while in cricket the advantage is with the batting,
the comparable feats are more pitching feats, such as pitching a
perfect game (not allowing a batter to reach first base). For a
baseball batsman to do something like hitting a century it would have
to be some sort of consecutive hitting streak, like DiMaggio's hitting
safely in over 50 straight games.

Of course, they are two different sports, so having uncomparable feats
in them is nothing remarkable. What in cricket compares with a
hole-in-one in golf, or converting a 7-10 split in bowling?

I generally manage to impress Americans with Bradman's test average by
pointing out what the next highest average among all test cricketers
is. Even when somebody knows nothing about the game, it's pretty
clear that Bradman was an order of magnitude above. Perhaps that will
make the point to your girlfriend.

Take it easy,
Ron Knight

by **circ..** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 06:52:29

For a baseball batsman to do something like hitting a century it would
have to be some sort of consecutive hitting streak, like DiMaggio's
hitting safely in over 50 straight games.

Yeah, but even a hitting streak in baseball can be misleading because a
batter can have a .200-.250 average. I mean, you can have one hit per
five bats per game (that's a .200 average, which is pretty mediocre by
baseball standards, the kind of batting you associate with the
Pittsburgh Pirates) for 50 games and you'd have a great hitting streak,
but your average would suck.

by **Andrew Dunfor** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:46:49

Quote:

> You know, there is one thing I think pretty much all of the cricketing
> world agrees on and that is that The Don was a pretty damn good
> player. It is quite amazing as an Australian to surf the web and see
> loving tributes to the great man coming citizens of every cricket
> playing nation on the globe (most especially India).

> Remember how Bradman recently made it into the "top 10 sportsmen of
> the century"? Was I really the only one who was disgusted that The
> Don was anything but number 1? I just can't accept that anyone has
> ever topped him.

> Perhaps I am biased as an Australian, but when I compare Sir Donald
> with the others who usually float around the top of these lists (Ali,
> Lewis, Pele, Jordan etc) I can never see how these people can even
> hold a candle to the great man's sheer *** of his game.

> My girlfriend is an American and knows virtually nothing about cricket
> (though I am trying to change all that) and one of the most
> frustrating things is trying to explain just why averaging nearly 100
> is so flippin' amazing. I can't even wrap my head around Sir Donald's
> achievements and if I didn't know it were true I would think that it
> was a fairy story. People like Michael Jordan and others have been
> superstars of their field, but I can comprehend them as simply very,
> very,very good. There have been others who come close to their
> ***.

> I think a big part of the problem is (epecially for America) is that
> their sports are generally very quick and even "throw-away" in nature.
> I just can't look at a baseball player hitting three home runs in a
> row as being amazing as a batsman scoring a double century. Three good
> swings vs hours and hours of concentration and work.

> I really think if the whole world understood cricket properly, Sir
> Donald would be the undisputed greatest sportsman ever.

> Please excuse this rather meandering, disjointed post. It is more of
> an outpouring of ponderings than anything else.

We all know that anyone who doesn't understand, or want to understand,
cricket is a sub-human life form, and probably unable to be saved. If you
feel that the attempt to convert your girlfriend is a worthwhile one, then
by all means keep at it.

Whilst the distance by which Bradman stands above others in his sport is a
reasonable factor in determining his greatness as a sportsman, I think it is
also fair to consider the "world" nature of the sport. Bradman's
achievements occurred at a time when cricket was even less of a global game
than it is now. Naturally this gives me the welcome chance to dismiss most
American sporting disciplines, particularly anything which has a "world
series" or "world championship" attached, but it's easily understanable to
me why someone might rank Pele or Carl Lewis ahead of Bradman.

Andrew

by **Colin Lor** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:17:18

Quote:

> [snipping most of his ponderings]

> > I think a big part of the problem is (epecially for America) is that
> > their sports are generally very quick and even "throw-away" in nature.
> > I just can't look at a baseball player hitting three home runs in a
> > row as being amazing as a batsman scoring a double century. Three good
> > swings vs hours and hours of concentration and work.

> There is no one-game batting performance in baseball that can be
> compared with hitting a century.

How many other sports have such an undisputed champion. Billiards has Walter
Lindrum, whose feats match Bradman. And a certain Australian female squash
player who had an unbelievable record (mental block on the name).

Athletics/Swimming: All records get broken. Is Lewis better than Jesse Owen?
What about FloJo (druggo). Thorpe is looking the goods, but some other freak
will eventually replace him and he still has plenty of other freaks to
knockoff to be #1 (Thorpe only has 1 individual gold medal at the Olympics).

RU/RL/AFL: Plenty of great players, but no clear standout.

Baseball: Try averaging the top 10 highest home runs/game averages and
adding 75-85% to it. That usual puts it into perspective.

As for Jordon there are others in Baseball who were as ***, Wilt
Chamberlan for one (sp).

Ali, the best of a very minor sport. Compared to the number of children that
play baseball, basketball, any form of football, cricket, golf etc boxing
has a very limited pool (of not to bright) athletes to select from (see
Mundine).

Ice Hockey: Generally Gretzky is considered the best, though defenseman
Bobby Orr is favoured by some for very good reasons. Others even prefer
other forwards like Lemuiex to Gretzky.

Soccer: Clearly Pele. But Maradruggo was co-winner of footballer of the
century (joke that it was).

Tennis: Plenty of debate there, Rocket (2 grandslams) v Sampras (0
grandslams, 0 french opens too). Graf v Court v Navratilova. No clear stand
out.

No doubt there are plenty of Asian sports I know *** all about, and who
is the best boules player I have no idea!

by **Geoff Muldo** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:36:56

Quote:

>How many other sports have such an undisputed champion. Billiards has Walter
>Lindrum, whose feats match Bradman. And a certain Australian female squash
>player who had an unbelievable record (mental block on the name).

Heather McKay:
Dominated women's world squash between 1962 and 1977 winning the
British Open (equivalent to the world title) 16 consecutive times.

Geoff M

by **P.G. Felto** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:07:22

Quote:

> > [snipping most of his ponderings]

> > > I think a big part of the problem is (epecially for America) is that
> > > their sports are generally very quick and even "throw-away" in nature.
> > > I just can't look at a baseball player hitting three home runs in a
> > > row as being amazing as a batsman scoring a double century. Three good
> > > swings vs hours and hours of concentration and work.

> > There is no one-game batting performance in baseball that can be
> > compared with hitting a century.

> How many other sports have such an undisputed champion. Billiards has Walter
> Lindrum, whose feats match Bradman. And a certain Australian female squash
> player who had an unbelievable record (mental block on the name).

Heather McKay

Quote:

> Athletics/Swimming: All records get broken. Is Lewis better than Jesse Owen?

Owens set 5 world records one afternoon!

Quote:

> What about FloJo (druggo).

Babe Dedricksen-Zaharias T&F, later golf!

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Thorpe is looking the goods, but some other freak
> will eventually replace him and he still has plenty of other freaks to
> knockoff to be #1 (Thorpe only has 1 individual gold medal at the Olympics).

> RU/RL/AFL: Plenty of great players, but no clear standout.

> Baseball: Try averaging the top 10 highest home runs/game averages and
> adding 75-85% to it. That usual puts it into perspective.

> As for Jordon there are others in Baseball who were as ***, Wilt
> Chamberlan for one (sp).

> Ali, the best of a very minor sport. Compared to the number of children that
> play baseball, basketball, any form of football, cricket, golf etc boxing
> has a very limited pool (of not to bright) athletes to select from (see
> Mundine).

> Ice Hockey: Generally Gretzky is considered the best, though defenseman
> Bobby Orr is favoured by some for very good reasons. Others even prefer
> other forwards like Lemuiex to Gretzky.

> Soccer: Clearly Pele. But Maradruggo was co-winner of footballer of the
> century (joke that it was).

> Tennis: Plenty of debate there, Rocket (2 grandslams) v Sampras (0
> grandslams, 0 french opens too). Graf v Court v Navratilova. No clear stand
> out.

> No doubt there are plenty of Asian sports I know *** all about, and who
> is the best boules player I have no idea!

by **Ben Gusse** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:09:43

Quote:

> > [snipping most of his ponderings]

> > > I think a big part of the problem is (epecially for America) is that
> > > their sports are generally very quick and even "throw-away" in nature.
> > > I just can't look at a baseball player hitting three home runs in a
> > > row as being amazing as a batsman scoring a double century. Three good
> > > swings vs hours and hours of concentration and work.

> > There is no one-game batting performance in baseball that can be
> > compared with hitting a century.

> How many other sports have such an undisputed champion. Billiards has
Walter
> Lindrum, whose feats match Bradman. And a certain Australian female squash
> player who had an unbelievable record (mental block on the name).

> Athletics/Swimming: All records get broken. Is Lewis better than Jesse
Owen?
> What about FloJo (druggo). Thorpe is looking the goods, but some other
freak
> will eventually replace him and he still has plenty of other freaks to
> knockoff to be #1 (Thorpe only has 1 individual gold medal at the
Olympics).

> RU/RL/AFL: Plenty of great players, but no clear standout.

> Baseball: Try averaging the top 10 highest home runs/game averages and
> adding 75-85% to it. That usual puts it into perspective.

> As for Jordon there are others in Baseball who were as ***, Wilt
> Chamberlan for one (sp).

> Ali, the best of a very minor sport. Compared to the number of children
that
> play baseball, basketball, any form of football, cricket, golf etc boxing
> has a very limited pool (of not to bright) athletes to select from (see
> Mundine).

> Ice Hockey: Generally Gretzky is considered the best, though defenseman
> Bobby Orr is favoured by some for very good reasons. Others even prefer
> other forwards like Lemuiex to Gretzky.

> Soccer: Clearly Pele. But Maradruggo was co-winner of footballer of the
> century (joke that it was).

> Tennis: Plenty of debate there, Rocket (2 grandslams) v Sampras (0
> grandslams, 0 french opens too). Graf v Court v Navratilova. No clear
stand
> out.

> No doubt there are plenty of Asian sports I know *** all about, and who
> is the best boules player I have no idea!

And there was the swimmer Mark Spitz who won 7 golds at one Olympics. That
was pretty amazing.

--
Cheers Ben.

"You are unique just like everyone else."

by **Paul Robs** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:27:45

Quote:

>We all know that anyone who doesn't understand, or want to understand,
>cricket is a sub-human life form, and probably unable to be saved. If you
>feel that the attempt to convert your girlfriend is a worthwhile one, then
>by all means keep at it.

Sometimes it is beyond hope ; returning from a trip to Orlando, in the
Airport, having just got a UK paper, the following conversation
ensued.

Me : "Geez..... Don Bradman's died"
Mrs R : "Who's Don Bradman ?"

Needless to say the divorce papers are in the post :)

PSR

by **Paul Robs** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:27:47

Quote:

>Perhaps I am biased as an Australian, but when I compare Sir Donald
>with the others who usually float around the top of these lists (Ali,
>Lewis, Pele, Jordan etc) I can never see how these people can even
>hold a candle to the great man's sheer *** of his game.

Agree totally. You can't compare a footballer to a cricketer in terms
of how good they are at the game. You can't compare modern players
to old ones.

BUT you can say for certain (I think) that the gap between Bradman
and the other players of his day was greater than that between
any two football players, or tennis players, or whatever.

Okay, so Ali was a great boxer ; in Bradman terms he'd have to
knock out everyone he fought one handed in the first two rounds.

The real reason for this is its run by Americans so it's full of
pointless American only sports where you can raise standards
by pumping yourself full of ***.

by **Andrew Dunfor** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:53:10

Quote:

> >We all know that anyone who doesn't understand, or want to understand,
> >cricket is a sub-human life form, and probably unable to be saved. If
you
> >feel that the attempt to convert your girlfriend is a worthwhile one,
then
> >by all means keep at it.

> Sometimes it is beyond hope ; returning from a trip to Orlando, in the
> Airport, having just got a UK paper, the following conversation
> ensued.

> Me : "Geez..... Don Bradman's died"
> Mrs R : "Who's Don Bradman ?"

> Needless to say the divorce papers are in the post :)

Was it not on the front page of the Orlando Sentinel then?

Andrew

by **Mad Hami** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:24:04

Quote:

>> [snipping most of his ponderings]

>> > I think a big part of the problem is (epecially for America) is that
>> > their sports are generally very quick and even "throw-away" in nature.
>> > I just can't look at a baseball player hitting three home runs in a
>> > row as being amazing as a batsman scoring a double century. Three good
>> > swings vs hours and hours of concentration and work.

>> There is no one-game batting performance in baseball that can be
>> compared with hitting a century.

>How many other sports have such an undisputed champion. Billiards has Walter
>Lindrum, whose feats match Bradman. And a certain Australian female squash
>player who had an unbelievable record (mental block on the name).

Heather MacKay, also Jahingar Khan, 5 1/2 years undefeated in the
80s...

by **Mike Pric** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:37:49

Quote:

>Sometimes it is beyond hope ; returning from a trip to Orlando, in the
>Airport, having just got a UK paper, the following conversation
>ensued.

>Me : "Geez..... Don Bradman's died"
>Mrs R : "Who's Don Bradman ?"

That's Bizarre. I left Orlando not many days before Bradman died.
None of the US papers even mentioned it. I found out about it days
later via cricinfo.

Mike

by **SAE** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:01:00

Quote:

> Remember how Bradman recently made it into the "top 10 sportsmen of
> the century"? Was I really the only one who was disgusted that The
> Don was anything but number 1? I just can't accept that anyone has
> ever topped him.

One must keep in mind, that Bradman played most of his test cricket against
England.

SAE :)

by **Matthew van de Werke** » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:38:04

Quote:

>> Remember how Bradman recently made it into the "top 10 sportsmen of
>> the century"? Was I really the only one who was disgusted that The
>> Don was anything but number 1? I just can't accept that anyone has
>> ever topped him.

> One must keep in mind, that Bradman played most of his test cricket
> against England.

There's an excellent book ahich tries to find out (a) the greatest
cricketer, and (b) the greatest sportsman of all time. It's called "The
Best of The Best", published by ABC Books. Suffice to say, Hamish would
love it (it uses statistics as its basis for argument).

Needless to say, Bradman wins.

Top ten:
Bradman
Sobers
Imran Khan
Hadlee
SF Barnes
IT Botham
SRT
SM Pollock
GA Headley
TL Goddard

Notice the high proportion of all-rounders in the list - it's because he's
added a bowling, batting, and fielding score to get the overall score.

Cheers,
MvdW

Sport Today

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.

Those bloody "Greatest Sportsman" lists.