SAF, Giggs, Tendulkar

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,821
Location
London
Three people in global sport who have dominated for the past 22 years or more. All three have smashed the world records and statistics that define them as the best the game ever saw.

With SAF retiring, and Giggs and Tendulkar with very few years left, a debate can be had on who was the greatest of the three?

'Greatest' can be defined in any way you choose.
 
duffer said:
Nobody has seriously thought of Giggs as "the best the game ever saw" have they?

Fergie and the cricket bloke yes, Giggs? Nah.
Click to expand...

'Greatest' in terms of PL games played and medals won. He is according to that definition?
 
As much as I love Sachin and Giggs, I think SAF wins this hands down.
 
SAF is far and above anything else. Giggsy's up there, but I would define his greatness - what sets him apart from the rest - as being derived from his longevity only, not skill. I can't agree to Tendulkar though, it has to be The Don.
 
Giggs wasn't the best football ever saw, up there as one of the most memorable with his achievements under United and longevity in the game, but he won't go down as one of the best actual players, because he isn't.

Also, cricket isn't a real sport.
 
More than one big country giving a proper shit about it. Requirement of participants to be physically fit. Requirement for games to have generally finished after 4 days of playing them. Not having a break for tea/lunch. Referees not wearing panama hats.

I could go on.
 
The point is 'best' can be defined according to many parameters.

In 50 years from now, when there is still no-one who has won 13 league medals as a player with 950+ professional performances for the top club in his land ... well some will ask, was he 'the best ever' ... I personally think Giggs records are as commendable as SAF's, in terms of delivering at such a high level for such a long period.

Likewise, despite what the above heathens say about modern day cricket, its intensely physically demanding and requires genuine skill and talent, esp at test level and so Tendulkars sheer volume of runs, 100 international centuries and a 24+ year international career playing in the most intense 'goldfish' bowl' that is Indian cricket where he is revered like a God, is as amazing a feat as Giggs and SAF.

So, I can argue each of them being the 'very best' sportsman in this generation. Its not clear cut at all for me.
 
That reminds me of Americans who think football's a rubbish sport.

"Why can't they just use their hands? The scores are always so low. Why do they all fall down when touched? Why are they singing in the stands? Where are the commercial breaks, kisscams, cheerleaders?"
 
sammsky1 said:
The point is 'best' can be defined according to many parameters.

In 50 years from now, when there is still no-one who has won 13 league medals as a player with 950+ professional performances for the top club in his land ... well some will ask, was he 'the best ever' ... I personally think Giggs records are as commendable as SAF's, in terms of delivering at such a high level for such a long period.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone will ask if Giggs was the best ever footballer, because he never has been. He might still be the most decorated by then, but that's a far cry from the best footballer ever, which incredible achievements or not, he simply isn't. I don't think having the highest total in terms of trophies makes you the best footballer out there, especially when there are very clearly better footballers.
 
duffer said:
If we are counting Tendulkar then Phil Taylor deserves a mention as well.
Click to expand...

does not hit 'longevity' for me. He is a record holder in his sport (darts) but without being genuinely 'remarkable' in world sport.
 
Hectic said:
Not something shit like cricket.
Click to expand...

You're in the wrong forum.

Mockney said:
More than one big country giving a proper shit about it. Requirement of participants to be physically fit. Requirement for games to have generally finished after 4 days of playing them. Not having a break for tea/lunch. Referees not wearing panama hats.

I could go on.
Click to expand...

What's a 'big country'? The best cricketers are extremely fit athletes, with powers of concentration that can rival most sports. You're being an idiot with the rest.

I think cricket is at best a medium skill sport, so you won't find me arguing too much for its case, but to discount it as a sport is arrogant bullshit, not from unexpected quarters, I might add.
 
Donaldo said:
What's a 'big country'?
Click to expand...

Only India is actually fanatical about Cricket, and the sheer volume of it's populous doesn't detract from the fact that only about 5 other countries take it remotely seriously.

Even Golf is more of a global, relevant sport. And that's barely a sport either.

When you're talking about the "greatest sportsman/athlete in the world" etc, you should invariably only consider either the most widely played or appreciated sports, or the most physically demanding. Otherwise we might as well include Darts, Kabbadi or Pat Ball.

Cricket doesn't fit into either of these categories. Also, the hats are atrocious.
 
Mockney said:
More than one big country giving a proper shit about it.
Click to expand...
England, India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe, UAE etc. And other, smaller, shitter nations (Ireland (yes, I said Ireland), Netherlands, Canada etc.).

Requirement of participants to be physically fit.
Click to expand...

You do have to be physically fit. You don't tend to see overweight cricketers.


Requirement for games to have generally finished after 4 days of playing them.
Click to expand...

Test cricket aside (and even sometimes test cricket), they do.

Not having a break for tea/lunch.
Click to expand...

You mean like 'Half time'?

I could go on.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Do.
 
Liam147 said:
Do.
Click to expand...

Australia, New Zealand & South Africa all give far more of a shit about Rugby than Cricket. Netherlands & Canada do not really care. Neither do Ireland, unless they can beat England. England care more about at least 3 other sports (Football, Rugby, Tennis) than they do Cricket, except for places that look like Midsommer and all have long standing subscriptions to the Daily Mail, and they don't count, or shouldn't, and wont when I run the Country. It gets a boost when The Ashes is on, at which point only about a third of the country will pretend they're interested. This all despite the fact we're actually better at Cricket than any of the aforementioned other sports. And invented it.

Also, John Major defined it as part of his ideal image of England. Which also counts against it.

Shane Warne was overweight. And has now been gutted and filled in entirely with liquid plastic for this very reason.

Half time isn't "Lunch"...Except possibly for Anderson. Real, proper sports don't stop for meal intervals. Again, with the possible exception of Anderson. But then Anderson isn't a real footballer.
 
sammsky1 said:
does not hit 'longevity' for me. He is a record holder in his sport (darts) but without being genuinely 'remarkable' in world sport.
Click to expand...

He's a 16 time World Champion and has been playing at the very top level since the 1980s. He'd be the Michael Jordan of Darts, if Michael Jordan was a bit more successful.
 
Basketball's definitely a more global sport than Cricket. And that's an American Sport. Which we all know are bonkers and no one plays.
 
Cricket isn't a sport, it's a hobby. A bit like croquet or bird watching.
 
What about Sir Steve Redgrave? He's also been really dominant at a slightly posh niche sport. But at least one where he looks really knackered at the end.
 
Cricket is a parlor game, where the younger men pretend that nothing is going on.
Then the senior man, with games-master hat, sings a song to himself. When the song finishes, he points at someone, and they have to walk off, and wave at as many people as they can.
The winning side is the one that stayed awake the longest.
 
Why isn't it a real sport? It's defo not as easy as football, and maybe even basketball. You have to be very fit to last on the field that long. And not everyone would be ready to face a ball coming at 145 km/hr from 22 yards. I don't see reasons for people to say it's not a sport.
 
What about....

Zanetti

or even

Mariano Rivera, guys 42, tore his ACL said "I'm not going down like this", came back at 43 and still beasts.
 
Had to google the name "Mariano Rivera" He plays baseball. That is hardly a global sport, is it?
 
Maldini has 26 trophies to Giggs 33, but they include 5 European Cups, 7 Scudettos, 5 Super Cups, & he has played in a World Cup & European Championship Final, as well as being runner up in World Player Of The Year. If we're including Giggs on longevity & honours, you have to consider whether some might consider Maldini's honours subjectively better.
 
Xavis on 24.....world cup, 2 euros, 3 CLs, 7 leagues.....5 more years. in terms of value, i think he's probably already won. i think.
 
verminater said:
Cricket is a parlor game, where the younger men pretend that nothing is going on.
Then the senior man, with games-master hat, sings a song to himself. When the song finishes, he points at someone, and they have to walk off, and wave at as many people as they can.
The winning side is the one that stayed awake the longest.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
duffer said:
He's a 16 time World Champion and has been playing at the very top level since the 1980s. He'd be the Michael Jordan of Darts, if Michael Jordan was a bit more successful.
Click to expand...

Wow. Never knew that. Astonishing stats! I stand corrected.
 
Tendulkar

Better at cricket than Giggs is at football, it's that simple. And as some of you may know, I'm something of a fan of Ryan Giggs. But Giggs is one of the best of his generation, Tendulkar's one of the best, if not the best, of all time. Aesthetically, they're about equal.

And a great athlete has to be given primacy over a manager, in my book. Because ultimately what captures our hearts is beauty and skill on the field [/pretentiousness], not a bloke orchestrating that in the background while chewing gum.

Why am I posting on the Caf? I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.