Using the squash comparison doesn't work though because no one watches it whereas cricket is one of the most popular sports in terms of fans.
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Won four more grand slams than anyone else, just won a record 8th Wimbledon title at the age of 35. That qualifies as being the greatest male tennis player of all time for me.
I was right, he won another Wimbledon.
Cricket might be popular in terms of fans, but I doubt more than 1% of the European population knows who Tendulkar is. I consider myself a sports freak and I didn't know him either before I joined the Caf. The likes of Federer, Ali, Jordan et al are a global brand. Even Gretzky, an undisputed GOAT, doesn't have that level of fame worldwide because ice hockey simply isn't popular enough around the globe.
Think there's another thread for that discussion though. As for this one, Federer is my undisputed GOAT and already was before his two GS wins this season.
You look at Andy Murray - very, very good tennis player, hugely competitive for a long time and ranked no 1 in the world but it looks to me that he's gone past his best and injuries will permanently affect his ability to compete for slams and possibly may never win another one - the has 3 of them (along with 2 Olympic golds, which don''t really factor into these discussions IMO)...his achievements have been deemed worthy of knighthood.
Rodger Federer has 19...Nineteen! Obviously Murray and Federer can't be compared but it goes to show you how how incredible his records are, never mind winning one of the highest prizes before his 36th birthday. Even without the 2 this year, he's fought for many titles and in an era with Nadal and Djokovic, 2 other plays worthy of being in the discussions for best ever. Plus Federer is such a joy to watch...an absolute legend of sport.
Rodger Federer has 19...Nineteen! Obviously Murray and Federer can't be compared but it goes to show you how how incredible his records are, never mind winning one of the highest prizes before his 36th birthday. Even without the 2 this year, he's fought for many titles and in an era with Nadal and Djokovic, 2 other plays worthy of being in the discussions for best ever. Plus Federer is such a joy to watch...an absolute legend of sport.
Shows Europeans are ignorant to other world news and facts. The funny fact is there are more than double people in India itself" than entire European population. Sachin Tendulkar has been as big as a brand one could be, in the same league as some of those legendary players and sportsmen around the world.
Last edited:
I'd never heard of the guy until he retired and there was mass sobbing on TV when i was in the region.
But in terms of the epicenter of world sport (Europe and North America) no one knows (or knew) about him.
Could this region be shortened to a single phrase, like, the west?
More like "the southwest asia"
That's exactly my point about ignorance to world events in major parts of Europe and America albeit the sheer number of his fan following out grows population of Europe and North America.
One of the factors is because of lack of social media during major part of his career and lack of interest of the west.
It's like saying someone in those parts of the world is ignorant of who Messi or Ronaldo or Federer is.
This is bollocks.
Not really. I grew up odolising Sachin but cricket simply isn't that big a sport compared to the others.
How is Woods even anywhere near the same stratosphere as federer? Is he considered the greatest of his own sport after his career fell off a cliff?
Its probably down to Cricket being viewed as a bit of a proprietary sport that isn't embraced in most countries where the narratives of what is and isn't popular are written.
His career falling off a cliff does not negate his accomplishments in the sport of Golf. To suggest he is not anywhere in the same stratosphere is at the very least, hyperbole. This is someone who was close to overtaking Nicklaus' record, before his personal issues.
Well that's not the point, neither boxing or golf or racing is that big a sport but people know who Ali's, or woods or Schumacher is and idolized for which sport
Federer.
Not sure how he compares with the greats in other sports. Statistically, Bradman is hard to beat and he ruled his sport like a colossus for almost 20 years and until he was 40. He, and Sobers too, dominated cricket to a degree that Tendulkar has never done.
Not sure how he compares with the greats in other sports. Statistically, Bradman is hard to beat and he ruled his sport like a colossus for almost 20 years and until he was 40. He, and Sobers too, dominated cricket to a degree that Tendulkar has never done.
Tendulkar. I've heard it all now.
Golf isn't really a sport tho.
Surely the litmus test of an all time global great is being revered outside of his or her base, by a wide range of countries and cultures? Often even transcending their particular sport? It isn't just a head count. Being huge in one heavily populated area is basically just stat padding. If China's most successful Popstar sold as many records as the Beatles, but only in China, would you claim he/she deserved to be considered amongst the GOATs?
IMO, it's probably less to do with Western ignorance (the English invented Cricket after all) and more to do with Cricket's general lack of traction. Of all the old Anglo public school originated passtimes, Football became the biggest not because it was a uniquely cool English thing forced on people during the height of the Empire (that was Cricket, if anything*) but because it was the one that organically caught on across the broadest global demographic. Yes it's helped by being big in a number of culturally important "cool" Western places, but it's also big in Africa and Asia, and famously unpopular in the World's current cultural arbiter of cool, America - which alone should disprove any notion of some nefarious Western sporting hegemony.
Even in America, where their inaccurate brand of football is the most popular domestic sport, and Baseball is considered the 'National passtime' it's Basketball that has the biggest global traction, and their stars most of us outside Trumpistan are familiar with, because it's the one with the largest reach outside of it's base. The one played and watched by the greatest smorgasbord of disparate peeps.
Ranked by the number of National Federations, Cricket wouldn't make the top 30...It'd even be below Rubgy, which is the sport it probably has the most in common with, being both spawned from the primordial sporting soup of 19th Century England, but still only of any genuine cultural significance to Commonwealth countries we basically forced to play it in the first place (*see above)...It had just as much chance of catching on as Football or Tennis, but it didn't. It's Free-market Sportenomics.
If anything I'd argue pushing for Tendulkar as an all time Sporting legend alongside the likes of Ali or Pele, displays more cultural myopia on your part, as it's presuming that a figure you consider important, from a geographically parochial sport, should automatically be considered so by the rest of the largely non-Cricket playing/caring world. It's kinda like me berating you for not knowing who Jhang Jike (the Chinese Federer of Ping Pong, btw) is.
But anyway, Tennis. What's up with that these days?
Last edited:
How come nobody here mentioned Jan Ove Waldner? After all, around 2 billion people are exposed to his sport and revere him like a demi-god. Off the top of your head, would you even be able to name the sport?
Could it be because, while a lot of people play it and watch it, most countries don't really care about it? I adore the guy and I still wouldn't include him.
It's similar with cricket. While the number of people into it is huge, the media coverage in most countries is close to zero. That's all I was saying.
It's debatable whether he(Tendulkar)was even the best batsman of his era let alone anything else. And in terms of stats he's in a pack despite playing his career on flat pitches, with a huge bat and being armoured like a samurai warrior. At least The Power Taylor has stats to back him or as Pirateasoup mentioned...Jahanghir Khan who is by head and shoulders the best squash player ever and Bradman too..who has amazing stats as well. The problem with minority sports is that they're easier to get in to...I'd fancy an averagely talented child to make county cricket but football?? Probably not..the pool is just too vast. Besides folk with beer bellies aren't athletes. Sorry Tendulkar. And sorry Phil Taylor.
Last edited:
Tbf, it's probably just as hard to make it as a Cricketer in India than it is as a Footballer anywhere else. There's likely more of a pack there than Phil Taylor (God bless 'im) ever had to contend with, what with up-and-coming English drunks in Hawaiian shirts being probably less of a premium than obsessive Indian Cricket fans.
However, as you say, the problem is that in pretty much every other country, its easier to make it as a Cricketer than whatever their main sport is. So the global competitive pool of potential greats will always likely come from India, or Aus, or the Windies, or any of those Commonwealth places that still play Cricket a lot because we used to own them at one time and kinda forced them to.
Weirdly, I'd reckon Shane Warne & Brian Lara are probably still the most well known Cricketers to most English layman. Which, depending on your outlook, could either prove how myopic and ignorant British sports fans are, or that no neutral has really given much of a shit about Cricket since the mid-to-late-90s. Apart from that time Freddie Flintoff got ratted in a pedalo. Which itself is more famous than the actual Cricketing he did. Whatever that was.
On a completely irrelevant tangent, I saw Warne in an airport a couple of years ago and he looked like a wax sculpture from a cheap horror film. He was weirdly shiny and vacant, like he'd been embalmed and had his soul sucked out by a demon.
Last edited:
Not sure if serious or just waiting for bait.
Serious. Golf, chess, darts - I don't consider either of them as a sport - they are games.
Yeah, hard to take it seriously when the prime demographics for golf is the Donald Trumps of the world. I knew lots of overweight, athletically inept businessmen/women playing golf, I don't know any of the same ilk who play football or tennis.
Splendid post.
Altough I'd say that Jan Ove Waldner is the Federer if Ping pong. Lets open the debate!
I never understood the fun part of it to be honest. Wacking a ball with a stick, then going after it and then wacking it again. It's a waste of space - you can do it in a mini golf course and helluva lot more dynamic.
As you noted it's an elitist, arrogant and even racist "sport" as well as the only non-white guys(apart from Woods) on the course are the ones carrying trays.
That and of course you can easily walk into a 5 star restaurant with the same shirt you play the game.
Some of these mini golf tourneys are seriously fun to watch. Sort of like outdoor snooker.
I just did mini golf this weekend and it was great fun. I definitely wouldn't classify it as a sport though
Why would the fact that India is an extremely populous country make cricket any more relevant to me? That's not a slight on the sport or anyone who watches it, but I find that notion absurd. That's less ignorance and more a lack of interest.
Federer but Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all time.
It would be have been fun to see peak Federer against peak Lendl and Connors
It would be have been fun to see peak Federer against peak Lendl and Connors
Peak Lendl wasn't nearly as good as Federer.
No one is as good as peak Federer, imo. That doesn't mean the match-ups wouldn't be fun to watch. Its more about the style match-ups being fun to watch between generational greats.
A great matchup would be peak Fed vs peak Sampras or peak Borg. Both dominant in their respective eras with great head games.
Its a bit preference. Connors is my favorite of all time so would be my first choice for a matchup.
Elo and rank of the opponents they have beaten.
Obviously Federer.