Tiger Woods

Or is it 100% better than Mickelson, and 150% better than the others? FFS.

Just give your head a rest......

Henry wrote:Or is it 100% better than Mickelson, and 150% better than the others? FFS.

I choose this one.

If the base is Mickelson's points, then Tiger's average is 100% better.

If the base is Tiger's average, then Mickelson's average is 50% as good.

Makes sense?

Assuming of course that the comparison itself is valid, i.e. whether you can compare using the points.

Tiger has won 14 majors from his first (masters) in 1997, to his latest (US Open) in 2008. That's a rate of 1.27 majors per year. Assuming he continues at this rate for the next 10 years, he will have won 25.2 majors by 2018, which will be well past Jack Nicklaus' record of 18.

In today's SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/who-is-the-greatest-sportsperson--ba-hrefhttpwwwsmhcomaupollssportformhtmlpollab/2008/06/17/1213468424193.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Paul Keating wrote:In today's SMH

[url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/who-is-the-greatest-sportsperson--ba-hrefhttpwwwsmhcomaupollssportformhtmlpollab/2008/06/17/1213468424193.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/who-is-the-greatest-sportsperson--ba-hrefhttpwwwsmhcomaupollssportformhtmlpollab/2008/06/17/1213468424193.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1[/quote[/url]]

LOL. It's funny how in the wake of Tiger's latest major triumph, an Aussie newspaper feels the need to try and reassure the country that Don Bradman is still the greatest sportsman ever, based on little more than the (Aussie) writer's personal opinion.

Yes Trev.

Some basic arguments against Bradman being the greatest sportsman ever

- He played a sport that is very limited in world appeal (Even more so back then)

-He played 70% of his tests against one country (What if Laxman played 70% of his tests against Australia?)

-The other sides he faced were pretty mediocre at the time (West Indies, India, South Africa....)

Yes but his average of 99 is almost 50% better than the next best of around 60-65.

A serious question and I am not WUMing.

But how advanced was cricket in Bradman's day? Was it that far from infancy?

Even though it is blasphemy I would say that Tiger is the greatest sportsmen ever. And this will be even moreso by the end of his career.

Paul Keating wrote:A serious question and I am not WUMing.

But how advanced was cricket in Bradman's day? Was it that far from infancy?

Test cricket was only really advanced in England and Australia. The West Indies were poor (Barring George Headley) as were India, South Africa, and New Zealand.

Basically there were 2 very good teams and 4 minnows.

And yet England managed to lose series to South Africa in 1930/31 & 1935 as well as a series in the West Indies in 1934/35.

The West Indies had some outstanding pace bowlers back in the 1930s.

Never that the facts get in the way

Henry wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:A serious question and I am not WUMing.

But how advanced was cricket in Bradman's day? Was it that far from infancy?

Test cricket was only really advanced in England and Australia. The West Indies were poor (Barring George Headley) as were India, South Africa, and New Zealand.

Basically there were 2 very good teams and 4 minnows.

Um, Aus didn't play tests against NZ in Bradman's day, did they?

First Aust test v NZ was in 1947 but Bradman didn't play.

Henry wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:A serious question and I am not WUMing.

But how advanced was cricket in Bradman's day? Was it that far from infancy?

Test cricket was only really advanced in England and Australia. The West Indies were poor (Barring George Headley) as were India, South Africa, and New Zealand.

Basically there were 2 very good teams and 4 minnows.

Test cricket was 72 years old when Bradman retired, 60 years ago. I think it was quite grown up. New Zealand in the 1930s were probably not much better than Bangladesh have been so far, but the others had enough high quality players to justify test status.

ten years after wrote:

Henry wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:A serious question and I am not WUMing.

But how advanced was cricket in Bradman's day? Was it that far from infancy?

Test cricket was only really advanced in England and Australia. The West Indies were poor (Barring George Headley) as were India, South Africa, and New Zealand.

Basically there were 2 very good teams and 4 minnows.

Test cricket was 72 years old when Bradman retired, 60 years ago. I think it was quite grown up. New Zealand in the 1930s were probably not much better than Bangladesh have been so far, but the others had enough high quality players to justify test status.

So NZ were the Rocco Mediate of world cricket in the 30s?

JGK wrote:

ten years after wrote:

Henry wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:A serious question and I am not WUMing.

But how advanced was cricket in Bradman's day? Was it that far from infancy?

Test cricket was only really advanced in England and Australia. The West Indies were poor (Barring George Headley) as were India, South Africa, and New Zealand.

Basically there were 2 very good teams and 4 minnows.

Test cricket was 72 years old when Bradman retired, 60 years ago. I think it was quite grown up. New Zealand in the 1930s were probably not much better than Bangladesh have been so far, but the others had enough high quality players to justify test status.

So NZ were the Rocco Mediate of world cricket in the 30s?

Well, he seemed to enjoy the game (rather more than Tiger ever does) and will have won a lot of friends for that. I think the 1930s Kiwis had this in common.

I was thinking more along the lines of Rocco's world ranking of 168 but your explanation works for me.

JGK wrote:I was thinking more along the lines of Rocco's world ranking of 168 but your explanation works for me.

Also, he came second which New Zealand have done alot in test matches.

WideWally wrote:And yet England managed to lose series to South Africa in 1930/31 & 1935 as well as a series in the West Indies in 1934/35.

The West Indies had some outstanding pace bowlers back in the 1930s.

**nods** Personally, I loathe this whole 'played against one team'. His career spanned 18 years or whatever, he faced some incredible bowlers:

Larwood, Geary, Tate, Voce, Tyldesley, Francis, Griffith, Constantine, Bell, Quinn, Bowes, Verity, Mitchell, Farnes, Sinfield, Mankad, Amarnath, Bedser, Laker, Young, Pollard

To name some of the better ones.

These bowlers were as varied as Test attacks produce to this day.

Furthermore, as the 'one team' he faced were a bloody good side, for the most part, it's quite risable to point it out IMO.

ten years after wrote:

JGK wrote:I was thinking more along the lines of Rocco's world ranking of 168 but your explanation works for me.

Also, he came second which New Zealand have done alot in test matches.

It works on so many levels.

Indeed Danny - without Bradman, England probably would have kept the Ashes from 1928 until the War against a side that still had some great players in McCabe, O'Reilly, Grum, Ponny etc.

Looks like Tiger did more damage to his knee playing in the US Open than was originally thought- He's out for the rest of the year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/golf/7458357.stm