The Greats Debates
Since everyone's talking about who's better out of Ronaldo and Messi at the moment, I thought I'd make myself a hostage to fortune by coming down definitively on one side, and while I'm at it give spurious reasons for who comes out on top in various other great sporting rivalries.
Look no further, here are all the opinions you'll ever need.
Ronaldo Vs Messi
Ok, I'll start with the nub of it. This has become trickier in recent times. For many years, Messi fans were able to say "Of course Messi's better, are you blind and stupid, and what's more have you a completely warped conception of beauty?" But the only part of that that still definitively still holds is the last bit.*
And, maybe, just maybe, Ronaldo is almost getting close to being in the argument. Maybe if Portugal win this World Cup, he might even, heaven forfend, have won the argument.
But failing that, look here's the thing. Their stats are very, very, remarkably similar. They've both scored unnatural numbers of goals and hat-tricks, won trophies and titles and Ballons d'or etc. (I mean, while we're at it, over the course of their career Messi's goals per game and assists per game ratio is superior enough for that to be significant ...)
Ronaldo wins games on his own. Messi sometimes wins games on his own, perhaps less often. But that's, conversely, why he's the better player. Messi is both individual genius and team player. He has always fitted seamlessly into the Barcelona team, first among equals, whether with Xavi and Iniesta, or Suarez and Neymar. He's just one of the boys, keeps the play moving, then strikes when the time is right.
When Ronaldo gets the ball, everything stops. He is a magnificent player and he makes the teams he's part of win, of course, but lots of people clearly don't enjoy playing with him, from Man Utd to Madrid. When Messi scores a fantastic goal, no one ever thinks "oh yes, very good, but you should have passed it". I've always rather enjoyed Ronnie's camp preening self-regard and I think that, alongside the hissy-fits, there's plenty of joie de vivre in his game, but even his most ardent admirers couldn't deny there's a monstrous ego in play which often takes away from colleagues' potential. Some are saying he's "improved" in this respect in recent times, but I don't really think so. It's not like he's ever been a monstrous unworkable hogger who never passes, his game is now and has always been all ego. You could say he exercises more leadership now, but it's still leadership by ego. It works, I'm not knocking it, but that's what it is.
And, look, the fact Madrid have dominated the Champions League in recent years, is that about Ronaldo, or is it about the extra oomph that a frustrated one-off like Bale was able to give them? Bale is integral to three of those Champions League wins, but has often been sidelined in La Liga. Which Madrid don't win so much. Because you can't win La Liga on your own - Ronaldo tries to, Messi doesn't. Ronaldo's only won La Liga twice.
Look, I'm kind of cherry picking. And perhaps some of us struggle to see past the skinny, spotty waste of 1000 stepovers that came along in 2003 and bemused the Premier League for a few years.
But Messi has a lot more assists than Ronaldo. He "struggles" (ie almost wins World Cup) with Argentina because he is such a team man and as a national side, they're not quite good enough to not build it as a one-man team. Ronaldo only knows how to be a one-man team.
I used to think Ronaldo was better, but then I started watching La Liga regularly and saw the week-in, week-out difference. One of them is a phenomenon, a machine, a master of self-betterment in the purpose of team success, but the other, I'm telling you, he has achieved an integrated, team-based football perfection over and over again. Whenever I've watched El Clasico, the difference has been clear. But then again, it shouldn't be about single matches, otherwise I'm just like all the folk claiming the first weekend of the World Cup proves Ronaldo's better.
Ultimately, it will defend upon the kind of player people love. For me, a great player is above all, someone who enhances their team, never makes the team worse, who brings out the best in the ten others on the pitch without overwhelming them. That has been Messi, with Barca, season after season, Over the course of a season, that will usually turn out better than someone who dominates, who is determined to write the narrative each time. Whereas I know that's what some people prefer. The big man, the maverick, the hero. Ronaldo, Zlatan, Maradona, Pietersen, Botham ...
WHO'S GREATER: Messi
*As I've mentioned a few other times, my idea of what's beautiful in sport is very tied up with left-sidedness, so I can concede that some of my natural bias is at stake in just how much aesthetically pleasing I find Messi than Ronaldo. Having said that ... the next pair to consider ...
Federer Vs Nadal
This, I think, is an interesting one. Perhaps Federer is the right-sided Messi here, whom fans simply cannot consider not being the very best of them. He is the far more beautiful player. He may be the most beautiful sportsperson ever.
In the same way I might suggest it's preposterous to think Ronaldo the greater player than Messi, a Federer fan might think the idea of Nadal being greater than Federer preposterous. But I think it's a close run thing.
As things stand, Federer has 20 Grand Slams to Nadal's 17 - also, crucially, his are more evenly spread around the tournaments. But there are some significant factors with which to argue against Federer. He has a losing record against both Djokovic and Nadal, significantly so against Nadal. In fact Djokovic is the only one of the big four with a winning record against the other three. Only 4 of his 20 Grand Slam titles were against Nadal or Djokovic in the final - he won a lot against lesser players before (or after) the prime of his great rivals. He also has a less than stellar record (only around 60%) in five setters.
So, maybe, if Nadal won another Grand Slam or two ... but, no Federer, particularly in light of his stunning Indian summer, holds on to this one.
WHO'S GREATER? Federer
Tendulkar Vs Lara (Vs Kallis Vs Dravid Vs Sangakkara Vs Ponting)
Aah now, this is the good stuff. I hold all these in the highest regard. I rate the combination of talent, temperament, fitness and concentration that it takes to be a great test batter above all else in sport. The end of the last century and the start of this was blessed with an extraordinary crop.
For a while, it was always Tendulkar/Lara, two little right-hand/left-hand princes, both impossibly gifted, one more consistent, one more touched with flamboyant genius. I preferred Lara. I still can't get my head round the wizardry of Lara's shots.
Tendulkar has come to be seen as the greatest of the age. He has scored the most heavily across all the formats, set records that will never be broken.
I generally bow to statistics. Usually, statistics should be enough to shut down blithering fools when it comes to sport. But there are always caveats. One is what I'd call the "Late-Shearer phenomenon". Late Shearer, Shearer for a large part of his Newcastle career actually, was still banging in the goals, 20 a season, on his way to that astonishing mark of 260 Premier League goals, but none of them meant anything. Of course, the odd one was memorable, a few spectacular Shearer clean hit volleys, but you know, Newcastle might draw 1-1, lose 2-1, win, lose, draw, finish between 4th and 12th, affect nothing. Shearer was accumulating goals, but not in any sense writing the narrative of football. Not like in his Blackburn days.
So it was, a bit, with Tendulkar. Tendulkar was in the pocket, totting up the centuries, but some of those other chaps were meaning more. I know that's the "myth" about Tendulkar, but it does have some truth. That's why people talk about that one against England in 2008 so much. Because it "proves" Tendulkar was a clutch player. But eg Lara played several unforgettable innings. I saw Kallis play unselfish knocks of extraordinary tenacity several times (while also taking wickets). Ponting was the key batsman in the best team of all team, and was able to shoulder the burden of captaincy and maintain his standard, unlike Tendulkar. And Dravid was often the one the Indian cricket fans needed to bat for their life.
So, who's the greatest? Well, Kallis is the best cricketer. He must be. But the greatest? Their numbers are broadly all in the same areas - plus 12,000 runs, averages 52 to 55., apart from one of them. Sangakkara has the highest basic average (57.4), but it is when you look at his average when he played as as a specialist batsman (rather than keeper/batsman), that you see the difference. 67 - in 87 tests (which is much longer than Bradman's whole career). 67 is on a separate level to the rest of them. Sangakkara should, in my opinion, be seen as a far greater batsman than all those other greats.
And, another thing, while I'm at it; if you hear Sangakkara speak, on cricket, on politics, and about his own life experience, you realise that he may be not just a clever cricketer, but someone with the capacity to be a transformative global political figure. He is an unusual human being, and to carry that weight of intellect and use it positively when one is required to be as single-minded as a test batsman is, for me, especially impressive. Who knows where he'll be in 10 years, maybe he'll still be chatting about batting with Ian Ward, but of all these greats, don't be surprised if he goes to a whole different level after he's left the game.
WHO'S THE GREATEST? Sangakkara
Hendry Vs O'Sullivan Vs Davis
The three greatest - there's a case for all of them. Davis was the pioneer, Hendry has the most world titles, Ronnie the most brilliant, who is getting close to breaking all Hendry's records. But, unless O'Sullivan wins another world title, I'd reluctantly stick with Hendry. Even though Hendry won a lot of his world titles against a single cowed foe (Jimmy White).
Hendry could be brilliant too. I remember a World Championship semi-final the two of them played in about '99 where they swapped centuries throughout a session, it was a whole new standard of snooker, and it was all out about who could hold that standard, and Ronnie blinked first. So, that's my decider. But I'll give it to Ronnie in a year or two if I can.
WHO'S GREATER: Hendry
Mayweather Vs Pacquiao
It doesn't seem like much but this is all that boxing fans talked about for years. Mayweather's greater sadly, on every reasonable level of achievement, including winning when they actually fought, though I'd still maintain that Pacquiao in his Hatton/Cotto/De La Hoya prime might well have won the fight.
WHO'S GREATER: Mayweather
Froch Vs Calzaghe
A closer-to-home but quite nice boxing rivalry, since they're probably the two best British fighters of the last 15 years. Same weight, not quite same era of pre-eminence, so they never fought. There's a case for both - Froch had such a long stretch of top fights against top opponents, was only properly bested once (the first Kessler fight is incredibly close and a hometown decision), had several spectacular vindicatory nights (Pascal, Taylor, Bute, Groves II) and truly made himself one of the most compelling fighters in the world, earning universal respect.
Calzaghe's career is a little more patchy, in terms of quality of opposition, but, the fact is, if they fought in their primes, you'd aspect Calzaghe to win 4 out of 5, at least. He was the better fighter. Sometimes an unbeaten record is almost held against fighters, like tough losses are a badge of honour, but Calzaghe simply always worked out how to win. Their respective Kessler fights highlight the separation between the two.
WHO'S GREATER: Calzaghe
Khan Vs Brook
A slightly odd one between two bitter local boxing rivals. If they fight soon, as they probably will, I'd expect Brook to win. But, up to this point, despite what most people say, I'd say Khan has had the much better career - Brook has only tested himself against world-class opposition three times (of which he's lost twice) - most of his caeer is dispatching average fighters. Khan has around 10 wins against former or current world champions - a much more solid and accomplished record than he's given credit for.
WHO'S GREATER: whoever wins when they fight
S. Williams Vs Sharapova
Only existed in the head of one of them, and a few overexcited tennis fans. But Sharapova serves as quite a good villain figure for Williams-worshippers.
WHO'S GREATER: S. Williams
Mickelson Vs Woods
A "rivalry"rather conjured up to make golf seem more compelling. Are you a Phil or a Tiger guy, American golf fans would ask? Do you prefer very good and quite dull in a smiley corporate way, or transcendently good in an odd but compelling way ...
WHO'S GREATER: Woods
Froome Vs Wiggins
Perhaps this seems a little pointless now, as there are no winners here, but I did used to exercise my mind quite regularly to who out of Froome and Wiggins was the good guy and the greater sportsperson. So, all things being equal ... which they can't be of course ...
A case for Wiggins is based on his versatility, his haul of Olympic golds, his being the first Brit to win the Tour de France, the fact that the Tour was outside his natural element. I was persuaded of this for quite some time. But really, most of that "versatility" is still based on a capacity for riding a bike for a long time at a steady speed. That was his extraordinary gift which he was able to transfer to different environments.
Froome's achievements in the last few years are genuinely stunning, would deserve to be seen amongst the greatest in British sporting history, if only ... so ...
WHO'S GREATER: Froome
Gerrard Vs Lampard
I've bored on enough about this. Lampard was the better player. More competent, more prolific, more solid, more rounded, less clumsy, more selfless, more victorious.
WHO'S GREATER: Lampard
Ferdinand Vs Terry
Tough to even consider this one, two central defenders who combined well for a while but are mainly set against each other, in club football and on opposing sides of a bitter racism case. Yuk, that Terry played more times for England, that anyone rates Terry above Ferdinand, that Capello resigned because he wasn't allowed to put Terry back in the team.
But, dammit, Terry was a very good defender, in his limited way, and for a longer time than Ferdinand. And he took his club, defined it and raised it to a higher level. There are arguments for Terry.
But, in his prime from roughly 2001 to 2009, Ferdinand was one of the best central defenders that ever existed - with him in place, England and Man Utd conceded very very few goals (many more when he wasn't), he did it by giving away so few fouls, he was utterly masterful.
In the 2006 World Cup, two defenders could have defended their team to the title - it turned out to be Cannavaro, but England, rubbish as they were from an attacking point-of-view in that tournament, were practically impenetrable with Ferdinand on the pitch. So, happily ...
WHO'S GREATER: Ferdinand
S. Williams vs Federer
Serena Williams is a greater sportsperson than Roger Federer. She's had far more obstacles, she's dominated and seen off rivals, she's won more, she's won doubles too. And she's walked incredibly, majestically, slowly across court between points.
WHO'S GREATER: S. Williams
Bolt vs Gatlin
There are fewer great rivalries in recent track-and-field than one would hope. I used to love races between Paul Tergat and Haile Gebrselaissie but that's a bit niche. Obviously, Bolt is greater than Gatlin in every respect (see Williams/Sharapova) but it was at least moderately compelling for a while.
WHO'S GREATER: Bolt
Wilkinson Vs Carter
I think this is closer than most would say. I know most confidently proclaim Carter is the greatest fly-half, had more of an all-round game than Wilkinson, but I think there are ... factors ... here. Factors like Wilkinson going first and setting the template for modern professionalism, like Wilkinson being injured for 4 years and almost coming back and winning a second World Cup, factors like the constant shit he had to put up with, factors like the fact Carter played for New Zealand and they were always, always really good so he could make merry hay as he liked and he didn't have to put up with people saying ooh Charlie Hodgson's better. So, controversially, I'm calling this a tie.
WHO'S GREATER: Both
Warne Vs Muralitharan
I think I just about have Warne as the greater cricketer, although the statistics favour Muralitharan, because Warne was at the centre of all cricket - Australia weren't the greatest team in the world when he came along and then they were for all the time that he played for them, and then stopped being so when he stopped playing for them.
And there's always that thing with Muralitharan. You can love and admire him, but there's still that thing that he was doing something, unwittingly, slightly other than the thing.
WHO'S GREATER: Warne
Brownlee Vs Brownlee
The one who always wins is better.
WHO'S GREATER: Brownlee
Hamilton Vs Vettel
Ha, as if I give a shit.
WHO'S GREATER: Who cares
Look no further, here are all the opinions you'll ever need.
Ronaldo Vs Messi
Ok, I'll start with the nub of it. This has become trickier in recent times. For many years, Messi fans were able to say "Of course Messi's better, are you blind and stupid, and what's more have you a completely warped conception of beauty?" But the only part of that that still definitively still holds is the last bit.*
And, maybe, just maybe, Ronaldo is almost getting close to being in the argument. Maybe if Portugal win this World Cup, he might even, heaven forfend, have won the argument.
But failing that, look here's the thing. Their stats are very, very, remarkably similar. They've both scored unnatural numbers of goals and hat-tricks, won trophies and titles and Ballons d'or etc. (I mean, while we're at it, over the course of their career Messi's goals per game and assists per game ratio is superior enough for that to be significant ...)
Ronaldo wins games on his own. Messi sometimes wins games on his own, perhaps less often. But that's, conversely, why he's the better player. Messi is both individual genius and team player. He has always fitted seamlessly into the Barcelona team, first among equals, whether with Xavi and Iniesta, or Suarez and Neymar. He's just one of the boys, keeps the play moving, then strikes when the time is right.
When Ronaldo gets the ball, everything stops. He is a magnificent player and he makes the teams he's part of win, of course, but lots of people clearly don't enjoy playing with him, from Man Utd to Madrid. When Messi scores a fantastic goal, no one ever thinks "oh yes, very good, but you should have passed it". I've always rather enjoyed Ronnie's camp preening self-regard and I think that, alongside the hissy-fits, there's plenty of joie de vivre in his game, but even his most ardent admirers couldn't deny there's a monstrous ego in play which often takes away from colleagues' potential. Some are saying he's "improved" in this respect in recent times, but I don't really think so. It's not like he's ever been a monstrous unworkable hogger who never passes, his game is now and has always been all ego. You could say he exercises more leadership now, but it's still leadership by ego. It works, I'm not knocking it, but that's what it is.
And, look, the fact Madrid have dominated the Champions League in recent years, is that about Ronaldo, or is it about the extra oomph that a frustrated one-off like Bale was able to give them? Bale is integral to three of those Champions League wins, but has often been sidelined in La Liga. Which Madrid don't win so much. Because you can't win La Liga on your own - Ronaldo tries to, Messi doesn't. Ronaldo's only won La Liga twice.
Look, I'm kind of cherry picking. And perhaps some of us struggle to see past the skinny, spotty waste of 1000 stepovers that came along in 2003 and bemused the Premier League for a few years.
But Messi has a lot more assists than Ronaldo. He "struggles" (ie almost wins World Cup) with Argentina because he is such a team man and as a national side, they're not quite good enough to not build it as a one-man team. Ronaldo only knows how to be a one-man team.
I used to think Ronaldo was better, but then I started watching La Liga regularly and saw the week-in, week-out difference. One of them is a phenomenon, a machine, a master of self-betterment in the purpose of team success, but the other, I'm telling you, he has achieved an integrated, team-based football perfection over and over again. Whenever I've watched El Clasico, the difference has been clear. But then again, it shouldn't be about single matches, otherwise I'm just like all the folk claiming the first weekend of the World Cup proves Ronaldo's better.
Ultimately, it will defend upon the kind of player people love. For me, a great player is above all, someone who enhances their team, never makes the team worse, who brings out the best in the ten others on the pitch without overwhelming them. That has been Messi, with Barca, season after season, Over the course of a season, that will usually turn out better than someone who dominates, who is determined to write the narrative each time. Whereas I know that's what some people prefer. The big man, the maverick, the hero. Ronaldo, Zlatan, Maradona, Pietersen, Botham ...
WHO'S GREATER: Messi
*As I've mentioned a few other times, my idea of what's beautiful in sport is very tied up with left-sidedness, so I can concede that some of my natural bias is at stake in just how much aesthetically pleasing I find Messi than Ronaldo. Having said that ... the next pair to consider ...
Federer Vs Nadal
This, I think, is an interesting one. Perhaps Federer is the right-sided Messi here, whom fans simply cannot consider not being the very best of them. He is the far more beautiful player. He may be the most beautiful sportsperson ever.
In the same way I might suggest it's preposterous to think Ronaldo the greater player than Messi, a Federer fan might think the idea of Nadal being greater than Federer preposterous. But I think it's a close run thing.
As things stand, Federer has 20 Grand Slams to Nadal's 17 - also, crucially, his are more evenly spread around the tournaments. But there are some significant factors with which to argue against Federer. He has a losing record against both Djokovic and Nadal, significantly so against Nadal. In fact Djokovic is the only one of the big four with a winning record against the other three. Only 4 of his 20 Grand Slam titles were against Nadal or Djokovic in the final - he won a lot against lesser players before (or after) the prime of his great rivals. He also has a less than stellar record (only around 60%) in five setters.
So, maybe, if Nadal won another Grand Slam or two ... but, no Federer, particularly in light of his stunning Indian summer, holds on to this one.
WHO'S GREATER? Federer
Tendulkar Vs Lara (Vs Kallis Vs Dravid Vs Sangakkara Vs Ponting)
Aah now, this is the good stuff. I hold all these in the highest regard. I rate the combination of talent, temperament, fitness and concentration that it takes to be a great test batter above all else in sport. The end of the last century and the start of this was blessed with an extraordinary crop.
For a while, it was always Tendulkar/Lara, two little right-hand/left-hand princes, both impossibly gifted, one more consistent, one more touched with flamboyant genius. I preferred Lara. I still can't get my head round the wizardry of Lara's shots.
Tendulkar has come to be seen as the greatest of the age. He has scored the most heavily across all the formats, set records that will never be broken.
I generally bow to statistics. Usually, statistics should be enough to shut down blithering fools when it comes to sport. But there are always caveats. One is what I'd call the "Late-Shearer phenomenon". Late Shearer, Shearer for a large part of his Newcastle career actually, was still banging in the goals, 20 a season, on his way to that astonishing mark of 260 Premier League goals, but none of them meant anything. Of course, the odd one was memorable, a few spectacular Shearer clean hit volleys, but you know, Newcastle might draw 1-1, lose 2-1, win, lose, draw, finish between 4th and 12th, affect nothing. Shearer was accumulating goals, but not in any sense writing the narrative of football. Not like in his Blackburn days.
So it was, a bit, with Tendulkar. Tendulkar was in the pocket, totting up the centuries, but some of those other chaps were meaning more. I know that's the "myth" about Tendulkar, but it does have some truth. That's why people talk about that one against England in 2008 so much. Because it "proves" Tendulkar was a clutch player. But eg Lara played several unforgettable innings. I saw Kallis play unselfish knocks of extraordinary tenacity several times (while also taking wickets). Ponting was the key batsman in the best team of all team, and was able to shoulder the burden of captaincy and maintain his standard, unlike Tendulkar. And Dravid was often the one the Indian cricket fans needed to bat for their life.
So, who's the greatest? Well, Kallis is the best cricketer. He must be. But the greatest? Their numbers are broadly all in the same areas - plus 12,000 runs, averages 52 to 55., apart from one of them. Sangakkara has the highest basic average (57.4), but it is when you look at his average when he played as as a specialist batsman (rather than keeper/batsman), that you see the difference. 67 - in 87 tests (which is much longer than Bradman's whole career). 67 is on a separate level to the rest of them. Sangakkara should, in my opinion, be seen as a far greater batsman than all those other greats.
And, another thing, while I'm at it; if you hear Sangakkara speak, on cricket, on politics, and about his own life experience, you realise that he may be not just a clever cricketer, but someone with the capacity to be a transformative global political figure. He is an unusual human being, and to carry that weight of intellect and use it positively when one is required to be as single-minded as a test batsman is, for me, especially impressive. Who knows where he'll be in 10 years, maybe he'll still be chatting about batting with Ian Ward, but of all these greats, don't be surprised if he goes to a whole different level after he's left the game.
WHO'S THE GREATEST? Sangakkara
Hendry Vs O'Sullivan Vs Davis
The three greatest - there's a case for all of them. Davis was the pioneer, Hendry has the most world titles, Ronnie the most brilliant, who is getting close to breaking all Hendry's records. But, unless O'Sullivan wins another world title, I'd reluctantly stick with Hendry. Even though Hendry won a lot of his world titles against a single cowed foe (Jimmy White).
Hendry could be brilliant too. I remember a World Championship semi-final the two of them played in about '99 where they swapped centuries throughout a session, it was a whole new standard of snooker, and it was all out about who could hold that standard, and Ronnie blinked first. So, that's my decider. But I'll give it to Ronnie in a year or two if I can.
WHO'S GREATER: Hendry
Mayweather Vs Pacquiao
It doesn't seem like much but this is all that boxing fans talked about for years. Mayweather's greater sadly, on every reasonable level of achievement, including winning when they actually fought, though I'd still maintain that Pacquiao in his Hatton/Cotto/De La Hoya prime might well have won the fight.
WHO'S GREATER: Mayweather
Froch Vs Calzaghe
A closer-to-home but quite nice boxing rivalry, since they're probably the two best British fighters of the last 15 years. Same weight, not quite same era of pre-eminence, so they never fought. There's a case for both - Froch had such a long stretch of top fights against top opponents, was only properly bested once (the first Kessler fight is incredibly close and a hometown decision), had several spectacular vindicatory nights (Pascal, Taylor, Bute, Groves II) and truly made himself one of the most compelling fighters in the world, earning universal respect.
Calzaghe's career is a little more patchy, in terms of quality of opposition, but, the fact is, if they fought in their primes, you'd aspect Calzaghe to win 4 out of 5, at least. He was the better fighter. Sometimes an unbeaten record is almost held against fighters, like tough losses are a badge of honour, but Calzaghe simply always worked out how to win. Their respective Kessler fights highlight the separation between the two.
WHO'S GREATER: Calzaghe
Khan Vs Brook
A slightly odd one between two bitter local boxing rivals. If they fight soon, as they probably will, I'd expect Brook to win. But, up to this point, despite what most people say, I'd say Khan has had the much better career - Brook has only tested himself against world-class opposition three times (of which he's lost twice) - most of his caeer is dispatching average fighters. Khan has around 10 wins against former or current world champions - a much more solid and accomplished record than he's given credit for.
WHO'S GREATER: whoever wins when they fight
S. Williams Vs Sharapova
Only existed in the head of one of them, and a few overexcited tennis fans. But Sharapova serves as quite a good villain figure for Williams-worshippers.
WHO'S GREATER: S. Williams
Mickelson Vs Woods
A "rivalry"rather conjured up to make golf seem more compelling. Are you a Phil or a Tiger guy, American golf fans would ask? Do you prefer very good and quite dull in a smiley corporate way, or transcendently good in an odd but compelling way ...
WHO'S GREATER: Woods
Froome Vs Wiggins
Perhaps this seems a little pointless now, as there are no winners here, but I did used to exercise my mind quite regularly to who out of Froome and Wiggins was the good guy and the greater sportsperson. So, all things being equal ... which they can't be of course ...
A case for Wiggins is based on his versatility, his haul of Olympic golds, his being the first Brit to win the Tour de France, the fact that the Tour was outside his natural element. I was persuaded of this for quite some time. But really, most of that "versatility" is still based on a capacity for riding a bike for a long time at a steady speed. That was his extraordinary gift which he was able to transfer to different environments.
Froome's achievements in the last few years are genuinely stunning, would deserve to be seen amongst the greatest in British sporting history, if only ... so ...
WHO'S GREATER: Froome
Gerrard Vs Lampard
I've bored on enough about this. Lampard was the better player. More competent, more prolific, more solid, more rounded, less clumsy, more selfless, more victorious.
WHO'S GREATER: Lampard
Ferdinand Vs Terry
Tough to even consider this one, two central defenders who combined well for a while but are mainly set against each other, in club football and on opposing sides of a bitter racism case. Yuk, that Terry played more times for England, that anyone rates Terry above Ferdinand, that Capello resigned because he wasn't allowed to put Terry back in the team.
But, dammit, Terry was a very good defender, in his limited way, and for a longer time than Ferdinand. And he took his club, defined it and raised it to a higher level. There are arguments for Terry.
But, in his prime from roughly 2001 to 2009, Ferdinand was one of the best central defenders that ever existed - with him in place, England and Man Utd conceded very very few goals (many more when he wasn't), he did it by giving away so few fouls, he was utterly masterful.
In the 2006 World Cup, two defenders could have defended their team to the title - it turned out to be Cannavaro, but England, rubbish as they were from an attacking point-of-view in that tournament, were practically impenetrable with Ferdinand on the pitch. So, happily ...
WHO'S GREATER: Ferdinand
S. Williams vs Federer
Serena Williams is a greater sportsperson than Roger Federer. She's had far more obstacles, she's dominated and seen off rivals, she's won more, she's won doubles too. And she's walked incredibly, majestically, slowly across court between points.
WHO'S GREATER: S. Williams
Bolt vs Gatlin
There are fewer great rivalries in recent track-and-field than one would hope. I used to love races between Paul Tergat and Haile Gebrselaissie but that's a bit niche. Obviously, Bolt is greater than Gatlin in every respect (see Williams/Sharapova) but it was at least moderately compelling for a while.
WHO'S GREATER: Bolt
Wilkinson Vs Carter
I think this is closer than most would say. I know most confidently proclaim Carter is the greatest fly-half, had more of an all-round game than Wilkinson, but I think there are ... factors ... here. Factors like Wilkinson going first and setting the template for modern professionalism, like Wilkinson being injured for 4 years and almost coming back and winning a second World Cup, factors like the constant shit he had to put up with, factors like the fact Carter played for New Zealand and they were always, always really good so he could make merry hay as he liked and he didn't have to put up with people saying ooh Charlie Hodgson's better. So, controversially, I'm calling this a tie.
WHO'S GREATER: Both
Warne Vs Muralitharan
I think I just about have Warne as the greater cricketer, although the statistics favour Muralitharan, because Warne was at the centre of all cricket - Australia weren't the greatest team in the world when he came along and then they were for all the time that he played for them, and then stopped being so when he stopped playing for them.
And there's always that thing with Muralitharan. You can love and admire him, but there's still that thing that he was doing something, unwittingly, slightly other than the thing.
WHO'S GREATER: Warne
Brownlee Vs Brownlee
The one who always wins is better.
WHO'S GREATER: Brownlee
Hamilton Vs Vettel
Ha, as if I give a shit.
WHO'S GREATER: Who cares
Comments
Post a Comment