Lynk
Obsessed with discrediting Danny Welbeck
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 14,948
No Tendulkar? brb, raging indians.
That's a really poor list.
Tendulkar? Wilkinson? Zidane?
Yeah, don't think they watch Cricket.
Golfers are not athletes.
Golfers are not athletes.
Even by American standards that's pathetic. The top 10 should technically be footballers. I'd say it's harder to become the 20th best footballer in the world than being no. 1 in any of the other sports.
My top five would be Phelps, Bolt, Messi, Jordan, Mayweather in whatever order.
Serena Williams, Roger Federer, Sachin Tendulkar, Tiger Woods and ... to make up the top ten? One of the basketball players, I guess.
Schumacher ffs.
Yes, doesn't make any sense. If you include Jordan for the past twenty years, Gretzky should definitely be included as well, imo. But it's all very subjective and nearly impossible to put together such a list, let alone in the right order - if there even is one.Messi should at least be in the top 3 and there should be no debating that. His accomplishments in football are far greater than what Lebron or Peyton Manning have achieved in their respective sports.
I have all the respect in the world for Michael Jordan, but if we're talking about the last 20 years (1995-2015), I really can't see how he'd be #1. In that time period he had a few amazing years with the Bulls and won Championships, but after that he retired and came back years later and was decent for the Wizards. Out of 20 years, he had 4 good years which shouldn't make him number 1. If it were a list of the last 30 years, than hands down he's number 1, but it's not.
Mia Hamm doesn't belong on this list. Neither should Lance Armstrong who cheated and Barry Bonds because he probably cheated.
If Jordan gets number 1 for so few years played, then Jerry Rice (NFL) should at least be on the list and it's suprising he's not considered how US-centric the list is and Rice is one of the greatest players ever.
Messi should at least be in the top 3 and there should be no debating that. His accomplishments in football are far greater than what Lebron or Peyton Manning have achieved in their respective sports.
I have all the respect in the world for Michael Jordan, but if we're talking about the last 20 years (1995-2015), I really can't see how he'd be #1. In that time period he had a few amazing years with the Bulls and won Championships, but after that he retired and came back years later and was decent for the Wizards. Out of 20 years, he had 4 good years which shouldn't make him number 1. If it were a list of the last 30 years, than hands down he's number 1, but it's not.
Mia Hamm doesn't belong on this list. Neither should Lance Armstrong who cheated and Barry Bonds because he probably cheated.
If Jordan gets number 1 for so few years played, then Jerry Rice (NFL) should at least be on the list and it's suprising he's not considered how US-centric the list is and Rice is one of the greatest players ever.
I have all the respect in the world for Michael Jordan, but if we're talking about the last 20 years (1995-2015), I really can't see how he'd be #1. In that time period he had a few amazing years with the Bulls and won Championships, but after that he retired and came back years later and was decent for the Wizards. Out of 20 years, he had 4 good years which shouldn't make him number 1. If it were a list of the last 30 years, than hands down he's number 1, but it's not.
after he came back he won three more championships.
fixed
after he came back he won three more championships.
He wasn't really a top athlete, though, as much as I love the great man.ESPNCricinfo is one of the biggest websites in the world dedicated to the sport, which makes the complete lack of cricketers even more amazing...
Tendulkar isn't just a nominee for the best sportsman of the last 20 years, but instead of the last 100 years. If that list were published in India, there would be riots.
He wasn't really a top athlete, though, as much as I love the great man.
Of course. I just mean that a batsman in cricket doesn't necesseirly need to be very athletic. And I absolutely worshipped the man growing up, so I shouldn't start praising himBased on what? The fact he's a tad chubbier than some of the more modern players? He's one of the best batsmen to ever play the game, and it's hard to argue against him being the most talented & influential player of the past 20 years. There's absolutely no way he doesn't make the top 20 for me.
Of course. I just mean that a batsman in cricket doesn't necesseirly need to be very athletic. And I absolutely worshipped the man growing up, so I shouldn't start praising him
The list is just stupid click bait and some of the responses here are silly.
Wilkinson suggested....wot