Greatest sportsman of each test country

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:And by the way, Bradman is the only contender for this title for Oz.

Heather MacKay?

No.

Why not? Wasn't she undefeated for something like 20 years?

But it's squash and it was a chick. Walter Lindrum has greater claims than McKay.

Didn't Lindrum only start winning when Joe Davis retired?

Bit sexist some might say.

Sexist and squashist.

No I think Lindrum dominated Davis as well (in billiards at least) although that may well be coloured Australian history.

Re sexist - women's sport was until recently dominated by richer countries. It makes no sense that Aust, for instance, could produce so many great female athletes and tennis players in the 50s to 70s but no have none to be seen as the poorer nations become good as well. So you need to take the depth of womens sport (particularly one as minority as squash) with a grain of salt.

JGK wrote:No I think Lindrum dominated Davis as well (in billiards at least) although that may well be coloured Australian history.

Re sexist - women's sport was until recently dominated by richer countries. It makes no sense that Aust, for instance, could produce so many great female athletes and tennis players in the 50s to 70s but no have none to be seen as the poorer nations become good as well. So you need to take the depth of womens sport (particularly one as minority as squash) with a grain of salt.

And cricket was played by how many nations in Bradman's day?

[snigger]

Taips sounds like a subi these days...

Invader Zim wrote:[snigger]

Taips sounds like a subi these days...

Nah Zimmy, just using JGK's argument.

I reckon that boofy Saffie chick that shoots goals for the NZ netball side is pretty grouse. What's her name? Something like, "I am a big dyke"?

Irene van Dyk

I stand corrected. It is Irene Van Dyke.

Very sharp, taips.

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:No I think Lindrum dominated Davis as well (in billiards at least) although that may well be coloured Australian history.

Re sexist - women's sport was until recently dominated by richer countries. It makes no sense that Aust, for instance, could produce so many great female athletes and tennis players in the 50s to 70s but no have none to be seen as the poorer nations become good as well. So you need to take the depth of womens sport (particularly one as minority as squash) with a grain of salt.

And cricket was played by how many nations in Bradman's day?

Most of the British Empire (ie about a a fifth of the worlds population played the game at its highest level). That includes the West Indies who, while small in population, have also provided some of the worlds greatest athletes. Probably only football and athletics and maybe boxing were more "global" sports.

Swimming, field hockey, rugby, baseball.

And tennis and badminton

JGK wrote:Most of the British Empire (ie about a a fifth of the worlds population played the game at its highest level).

countries where it was played constituted a fifth of the population. it doesnt mean a fifth of the population took the game seriously or could even consider it as a lifestyle option

The One wrote:

JGK wrote:Most of the British Empire (ie about a a fifth of the worlds population played the game at its highest level).

countries where it was played constituted a fifth of the population. it doesnt mean a fifth of the population took the game seriously or could even consider it as a lifestyle option

The fifth of the population is also a dubious call.

Hard to tell a TO and Taips post apart these days...

Invader Zim wrote:Hard to tell a TO and Taips post apart these days...

Only if you are a dumb qunt.