GOAT - The eternal debate

[Reiser99]

In terms of F1, Hamilton and Schumacher have the best records. But Jim Clark if he had a similar career would have probably beaten them comfortably.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Fangio a shout for racing too, he had the best car but was also in his 40s winning WCs

 

[RedruthRFC]

Well the point with Bradman isn't that he's better than his peers, he's better than everyone across all eras by an absurd degree. I don't think it's fair to being up the 'was everyone else any good' question here more than any other sport. It's not that cricket hasn't had other great players, if we just look at it and pretend Bradman doesn't exist for a second someone would probably be making an argument for Sachin Tendulkar in this thread. Or maybe Steve Smith if we limit it to tests. Those guys were undeniably brilliant but they're blown out of the water by Bradman.

Indeed, but Bradman's stats were compiled against the bowling attack of his peers. Would they be as impressive if you put him in a time machine and transported him to face the West Indies in the 80s or Australia in the 2000s?

 

[ncurd]

F1 theres a long of potential suitors

G Hill, Stewart, Moss, Lauda, Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton, Fangio and I'm probably missing one or two, there are also people like Hakkienen and Alonso who if history had be kinder could of racked up way more a reputation. As opposed to a Vettel or Damon Hill who clearly just happened to take the most of a great oppertunity.

The problem is the machinery behind the car makes it very hard to tell, some ran in far more competetive eras. Sometimes reliability was also more of a factor. Couple with different scoring systems where races didn't count.

 

[ncurd]

Indeed, but Bradman's stats were compiled against the bowling attack of his peers. Would they be as impressive if you put him in a time machine and transported him to face the West Indies in the 80s or Australia in the 2000s?

That's kind of the point of the comparison against his bowling peers he was leagues ahead of every Batsman who played. Bradman is at 99.94 where as nobody of his era was close in terms of timing Herbert Sutcliffe was at 60.73 at no.7, no. 2 on the list was Voges at 61.87. Steve Smith is mordern era an averages 61.80 and he regularly has to play India, NZ and Eng all of whom have formidable pace attacks. The history of cricket shows an average of 50-60 is obtainable in any era and is pretty much for the elite players. For one player to have 50% more an average is unheard of in any sport.

Lets looks at the top 25 poinst scorers in rugby Dan Carters PPG is 14.26 and he comes up on top but to be Don Bradman good everyone else who ever played the game would have to have a PPG of 8.66, or below but in the top 25 overall points scorers only 8 fail that threshold and a whole host in the same and diffrent era being directly comparable (within 1.5 points) on that front.

 

[Leinster Fan]

Indeed, but Bradman's stats were compiled against the bowling attack of his peers. Would they be as impressive if you put him in a time machine and transported him to face the West Indies in the 80s or Australia in the 2000s?

I mean there's no way of knowing but a batting average of 99.94 when the next highest credible average is Steve Smith at 61.8 (ignoring Adam Voges but he's only slightly ahead of Smith anyway) suggests that he'd be great in any era. When roughly half his average at 50 puts you in the conversation for all time great (Root is in that area and many would say he's England's best batsman ever but that's for another thread) I think there's a strong case that he's on another level. No one from his era managed to put up similar scores regardless of how good the bowling may or may not have been. It's hard to gauge how he'd have done in another era but it'd be much easier to make a case that he'd be the best in any era than to claim that Smith/Weekes/whoever would manage a similar average in his era.

 

[ncurd]

(Root is in that area and many would say he's England's best batsman ever but that's for another thread)

Its going to take me some hard convincing its not Alistair Cook (and it likely would of been Trescothick if not for his mental health), mind you if today is anything to go by he's going to try his best. Basically he has emulate Cook's heroics in the 10/11 ashes for me (766 runs at an average of 127.66).

 

[Leinster Fan]

That's kind of the point of the comparison against his bowling peers he was leagues ahead of every Batsman who played. Bradman is at 99.94 where as nobody of his era was close in terms of timing Herbert Sutcliffe was at 60.73 at no.7, no. 2 on the list was Voges at 61.87. Steve Smith is mordern era an averages 61.80 and he regularly has to play India, NZ and Eng all of whom have formidable pace attacks. The history of cricket shows an average of 50-60 is obtainable in any era and is pretty much for the elite players. For one player to have 50% more an average is unheard of in any sport.

Well put, what I was trying to say but probably better explained. As you've said the key point is that all through cricketing history the best players have generally been able to hit averages of 50-60, where 60 seems a soft upper limit especially across an entire career. And then Bradman is there at nearly double everyone else.

 

[Leinster Fan]

Its going to take me some hard convincing its not Alistair Cook (and it likely would of been Trescothick if not for his mental health), mind you if today is anything to go by he's going to try his best. Basically he has emulate Cook's heroics in the 10/11 ashes for me (766 runs at an average of 127.66).

It's not a viewpoint I'd agree with, either in the modern era or looking back through history (if you go off averages alone it'd appear that most of England's best played in the first half of the 20th century). But it is a view a fair few people seem to subscribe to. I can see him surpassing Cook but agreed that it hasn't happened yet. My point is more that Root averages in and around 50 (think he's back over after today) and that's been enough to propel him into the conversation of the best ever for one of the game's most significant countries. And Bradman has twice his average. The best way to illustrate his dominance is that a bowler who took wickets every 20-30 balls at an average of 11-13 would be the equivalent and that seems more or less impossible. (Those numbers are very rough but it's an attempt to show Bradman's statistical dominance more than anything).

 

[Reiser99]

As people have mention part of the issue is comparing players of different eras. The games were usually very different, different rules, different equipment. Imagine Federer using a racquet like Borg or McEnroe. Would he still be as good?

For me in the end stats are the only true measure and averages especially. There are usually some players who have bright moments, but aren't consistent. Averages generally show who has competed at a high level consistently. Yes Bradman may not have faced the best bowlers ever, but to consistently score well and have that mental focus takes a great player regardless.

 

[RedruthRFC]

That's kind of the point of the comparison against his bowling peers he was leagues ahead of every Batsman who played. Bradman is at 99.94 where as nobody of his era was close in terms of timing Herbert Sutcliffe was at 60.73 at no.7, no. 2 on the list was Voges at 61.87. Steve Smith is mordern era an averages 61.80 and he regularly has to play India, NZ and Eng all of whom have formidable pace attacks. The history of cricket shows an average of 50-60 is obtainable in any era and is pretty much for the elite players. For one player to have 50% more an average is unheard of in any sport.

I'm not disputing any of that, I was responding to the notion that his stats prove that he's better than anyone who else. Maybe I'm getting too hung up in semmantics, but all that it proves is that he was significantly better than those who played at the same time as him. Just playing devil's advocate, FWIW, he would be my pick as GOAT within the parameters defined, particularly as I'm a believer that once a sport has reached maturity (in terms up uptake and how seriously it's taken by competitors) players' greatness can only be assessed in terms of how they fared against their peers.

I'm not a cricket fan in particular, so I ask from a position of ignorance, but are the statistically best bowlers revered as all time greats?

Lets looks at the top 25 poinst scorers in rugby Dan Carters PPG is 14.26 and he comes up on top but to be Don Bradman good everyone else who ever played the game would have to have a PPG of 8.66, or below but in the top 25 overall points scorers only 8 fail that threshold and a whole host in the same and diffrent era being directly comparable (within 1.5 points) on that front.

This is where comparisons across sports become tricky. I wish I understood more about statistics and that what I was taught was explained in real world terms. I don't think that you can make simple comparisons like this across sports (or even within a team sport, but that's a different argument). By this rationale, Usain Bolt would have had to run a sub 5 second 100m to be considered on a par with Bradman.

 

[ncurd]

I'm not a cricket fan in particular, so I ask from a position of ignorance, but are the statistically best bowlers revered as all time greats?

Less so early era bowlers went for insane averages Charles Marriott is technically the best but only played one test match at 8.71, his first class average is pretty top tier at 20.11. But there was a stage where batsman were just shocking.

In modern era absolutely its something that gets talked about a lot James Anderson probably has the biggest question mark put over his head because of it. He's well up there all time leading wicket takes but his average is a little bit below other all time greats and it gets put into question whether he actually deserves it. However he was exceptionally poor after he inistailly burst on the scene due to coaches mucking up his action. Also part of the reason its less talk about than batsman is economy rates also come into the conversation which for batsman strike rates rarely do.

This is where comparisons across sports become tricky. I wish I understood more about statistics and that what I was taught was explained in real world terms. I don't think that you can make simple comparisons like this across sports (or even within a team sport, but that's a different argument). By this rationale, Usain Bolt would have had to run a sub 5 second 100m to be considered on a par with Bradman.

Thats why I picked PPG in a team sport its slightly more directly comparable with a batting average.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

As people have mention part of the issue is comparing players of different eras. The games were usually very different, different rules, different equipment. Imagine Federer using a racquet like Borg or McEnroe. Would he still be as good?

Yes, IMO. Nadal and Djokovic less so.

 

[Reiser99]

Yes, IMO. Nadal and Djokovic less so.

Fair enough, again I'm not saying he wouldn't. I'm just highlighting how it's almost impossible to accurately compare players. For me the best athletes are the ones who perform well at a high level consistently.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Even ignoring eras in the relative field argument I think the sport has to be considered and every sport trailing behind soccer. This is a bit theoretical and abstract but if you could imagine the perfect game, with perfect athletes and tactics in any sport, soccer had come closest to achieving it. The top teams in the world are at the cutting edge for training, nutrition, physio, data analytics etc... and while some (not many) other sports match this none can match the player pool to select from.

Put a bit more simply, you don't have to be as good at rugby to play for New Zealand or as good at cricket to play for Australia as you have to be at soccer to play for Real Madrid or Barcelona because there is far far less competition to get there. Getting to the top level of less popular sports and being far and away the best gets you in the conversation but considering Ronaldo and Messi did the same in soccer I still think Bradman, Gretzky, Woods or whoever it may be falls short.

 

[Leinster Fan]

Even ignoring eras in the relative field argument I think the sport has to be considered and every sport trailing behind soccer. This is a bit theoretical and abstract but if you could imagine the perfect game, with perfect athletes and tactics in any sport, soccer had come closest to achieving it. The top teams in the world are at the cutting edge for training, nutrition, physio, data analytics etc... and while some (not many) other sports match this none can match the player pool to select from.

Put a bit more simply, you don't have to be as good at rugby to play for New Zealand or as good at cricket to play for Australia as you have to be at soccer to play for Real Madrid or Barcelona because there is far far less competition to get there. Getting to the top level of less popular sports and being far and away the best gets you in the conversation but considering Ronaldo and Messi did the same in soccer I still think Bradman, Gretzky, Woods or whoever it may be falls short.

I'd agree with this for the most part and if I had to give one answer to the question it'd probably be Messi but I do think cricket isn't outside that echelon given that it is by far the most popular sport in a country of 1 billion people and very popular in several other countries that have a history of success in other sports.

 

[Reiser99]

Even ignoring eras in the relative field argument I think the sport has to be considered and every sport trailing behind soccer. This is a bit theoretical and abstract but if you could imagine the perfect game, with perfect athletes and tactics in any sport, soccer had come closest to achieving it. The top teams in the world are at the cutting edge for training, nutrition, physio, data analytics etc... and while some (not many) other sports match this none can match the player pool to select from.

Put a bit more simply, you don't have to be as good at rugby to play for New Zealand or as good at cricket to play for Australia as you have to be at soccer to play for Real Madrid or Barcelona because there is far far less competition to get there. Getting to the top level of less popular sports and being far and away the best gets you in the conversation but considering Ronaldo and Messi did the same in soccer I still think Bradman, Gretzky, Woods or whoever it may be falls short.

And yet I still find football incredibly boring to watch.

On another line of thinking, to popularity of football means it's more likely to find the best athletes compared to other sports and the support players get allows them to develop better than other sports. Also as has been highlighted, any team sport can be affected by the quality of the team. Individual athletes only have their own records to rely on. There are certainly some players in team sports who have got to the top despite not being the best player. Obviously though this wouldn't apply to Messi, etc...

 

[RedruthRFC]

Even ignoring eras in the relative field argument I think the sport has to be considered and every sport trailing behind soccer. This is a bit theoretical and abstract but if you could imagine the perfect game, with perfect athletes and tactics in any sport, soccer had come closest to achieving it. The top teams in the world are at the cutting edge for training, nutrition, physio, data analytics etc... and while some (not many) other sports match this none can match the player pool to select from.

Put a bit more simply, you don't have to be as good at rugby to play for New Zealand or as good at cricket to play for Australia as you have to be at soccer to play for Real Madrid or Barcelona because there is far far less competition to get there. Getting to the top level of less popular sports and being far and away the best gets you in the conversation but considering Ronaldo and Messi did the same in soccer I still think Bradman, Gretzky, Woods or whoever it may be falls short.

Good post. This is what I was getting at when I mentioned sports that have "reached maturity".

I would make the same argument for the running events in athletics. I would think that there's barely an able bodied kid on the planet who hasn't taken part in running races. Talent is easily identified and filtered upwards. To be fair, the resources thrown at it don't compare until you reach the elite level and probably still aren't on a par.

 

[duncanb]

CB Fry represents his country in multiple sports.
Google for his achievements.
Cant imagine anyone in modern era getting close.

 

[Which Tyler]

CB Fry represents his country in multiple sports.
Google for his achievements.
Cant imagine anyone in modern era getting close.

Mentioned above, IMO Jim Thorpe is more impressive. Eric Liddell another famous example from that era.
Modern era give us the likes of Jeff Wilson, Lauryn Williams, Becca Romero, Alex Zanardi etc I think there have been a few lady dual internationals between rugby, cricket and football from Aus and NZ. A few americans have done 2 of Baseball, basketball and American football too.
With professionalism though, you really do multi-event consecutively, not concurrently, it simply takes too much commitment (barring multi-event, single sports, like tri/pent/hept/dec-athlon)

Fry is definitely a worthy nomination though - I've certainly done so before.
IIRC, he nominated Max Woosnam as his superior (who, like Thorpe, I had to look up after nominating Fry, and getting replies like this)