Mt. Rushmore of world Sports.

[QUOTE=lakers_forever]Respectfully disagree. Maradona was a loser for much of his career to be considered the greatest. Lost 3 of 4 World Cups. Never won a Libertadores or a Champions League and was not among the all time greats at the main objective of the sport : scoring goals. Pele scored 1281. Maradona scored a little more than 300. Even players like Zico, who played in Maradona's time and same position had like 800 + goals. Maradona does not have the titles and does not have the stats. Plus he was not a complete footballer. He sucked at headers and could not shoot properly with his right foot.

Pele is Wilt + Russell. Record scoring plus titles. He is the GOAT. Just like Jordan had the stats and titles to back him.

Sorry about my ignorance on the subject, but who is Don Bradman?[/QUOTE]

I am by no means educated when it comes to soccer so i will take your word for it... All i knew was that they were both greats of the sport and shared the title for FIFA player of the century(i believe). Thanks for the insight:cheers:

[QUOTE=emsteez forreal]who the fu[COLOR="black"]c[/COLOR]k is don bradman?[/QUOTE]

Wisden hailed Bradman as, "the greatest phenomenon in the history of cricket, indeed in the history of all ball games".[1] Statistician Charles Davis analysed the statistics for several prominent sportsmen by comparing the number of standard deviations that they stand above the mean for their sport.[224] The top performers in his selected sports are:

[IMG]http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1507/bradman.jpg[/IMG]

but americans don't have cricket so i doubt he would be considered on this site.

i'd also add jordan, ali and michael schumacher

[QUOTE=miller-time]Wisden hailed Bradman as, "the greatest phenomenon in the history of cricket, indeed in the history of all ball games".[1] Statistician Charles Davis analysed the statistics for several prominent sportsmen by comparing the number of standard deviations that they stand above the mean for their sport.[224] The top performers in his selected sports are:

[IMG]http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1507/bradman.jpg[/IMG]

but americans don't have cricket so i doubt he would be considered on this site.

i'd also add jordan, ali and michael schumacher[/QUOTE]

yeah the last guy explained it. ridiculous. :eek:

[QUOTE=emsteez forreal]well god damn, i was getting ready to bash cricket, but 99.94?! that is out of 100 right?! lol[/QUOTE]

No, when it comes to cricket that is how much you average per inning, however it does take into account times when the team has declared or for some other reason the batsman finished not out.

So it's calculated by amount of runs divided by number of times a player gets out. So for every time Bradman got out he scored 99.94 runs.

Edit-Found this: [i]In cricket, a player's batting average is the total number of runs he has scored divided by the number of times he has been out. Since the number of runs a player scores and how often he gets out are primarily measures of his own playing ability, and largely independent of his team mates, batting average is a good statistic for describing an individual player's skill as a batsman. The number is also simple to interpret intuitively, being approximately the average number of runs the batsman scores per innings. Batting average has been used to gauge cricket players' relative skills since the 18th century.[/i]

[QUOTE=AJ2k8]No, when it comes to cricket that is how much you average per inning, however it does take into account times when the team has declared or for some other reason the batsman finished not out.

So it's calculated by amount of runs divided by number of times a player gets out. So for every time Bradman got out he scored 99.94 runs.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: excuse the american. but wow, that's ridiculous.

Jordan, Ali, Pele/Zico(Fav player of all time :D) and Gretzky.

[QUOTE=kaiteng]Does 99.94 mean he scores 99 runs in one inning? I don't know much about cricket so can anyone explain how things work in cricket compare to baseball?[/QUOTE]

Ok so in cricket you bat until you get out and there are two batsmen on the field at the same time. For every time you run to the other side of the pitch it equals a run, for every ball hit over the boundary on the full is counted as 6 runs and for every ball you hit past the boundary (not on the full) is counted as 4 runs.

An innings is basically a team's batting session which lasts until either 10players get out, time runs out or the side declares. A test match (the most commonly played type of cricket) lasts a maximum of 5 days and each team has 2 innings so the innings can go on for a while.

He's average is just his amount of runs scored in his career divided by how many times he got out.

The amazing thing about Bradman's average is that the next best average in test cricket history is by Graeme Pollock who averaged 60.97.


Dont know if that explains it well enough:confusedshrug:

Jackie Robinson, Pele, Gretzki, Jordan

[quote=AJ2k8]Jordan, Pele/Maradona, Ali, [B]Lance Armstrong[/B]/Don Bradman

Can't decide between Cycling or Cricket... As for Pele and Maradona either would do.[/quote]

You put up a cyclist and you put up Eddy Merckx. Lance Armstrong wouldn't even be on the Mt. Rushmore of cycling if there where 8 heads.

[quote=lakers_forever]Respectfully disagree. Maradona was a loser for much of his career to be considered the greatest. Lost 3 of 4 World Cups. Never won a Libertadores or a Champions League and was not among the all time greats at the main objective of the sport : scoring goals. Pele scored 1281. Maradona scored a little more than 300. Even players like Zico, who played in Maradona's time and same position had like 800 + goals. Maradona does not have the titles and does not have the stats. Plus he was not a complete footballer. He sucked at headers and could not shoot properly with his right foot.

Pele is Wilt + Russell. Record scoring plus titles. He is the GOAT. Just like Jordan had the stats and titles to back him.quote]

Football is a teamsport. Maradona didn't have the national teams Pele had.
Pele was only the best player on his team in one of those World Cup wins at any rate, so that puts him on par with Maradona.

And of course Maradona didn't score as many goals as Pele. Completely different era's, different level of competetion, almost a completely different sport. In the Brazilian league when Pele played there scores like 5-4 where casual scores. Maradona played his entire prime in the Italian League during the hey days of the Catenaccio, and on top of that he wasn't even a forward.


And you couldn't even get the main objective of football right. The main objective of football is not scoring goals.

[QUOTE=LJJ]You put up a cyclist and you put up Eddy Merckx. [B]Lance Armstrong wouldn't even be on the Mt. Rushmore of cycling if there where 8 heads.[/B][/QUOTE]

really? I know nothing about cycling but this can't be true.

[quote=JtotheIzzo]really?[B] I know nothing about cycling[/B] but this can't be true.[/quote]

There you go.

[QUOTE=hayden695]yes but how many cricket followers are there? [/QUOTE]

Melbourne Cricket Ground seats approximately 100,000 people. City of Melbourne has a population of about 3,000,000.

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Mcg_internal_odi_medium.jpg/800px-Mcg_internal_odi_medium.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/MCG_Crowd.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://media.lifehacker.com.au/mt/MCG_stadium.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Manute for Ever!]Melbourne Cricket Ground seats approximately 100,000 people. City of Melbourne has a population of about 3,000,000.

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Mcg_internal_odi_medium.jpg/800px-Mcg_internal_odi_medium.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/MCG_Crowd.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://media.lifehacker.com.au/mt/MCG_stadium.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Well phuck off

jk, guess im just partial to sports i like or at least find entertaining

[QUOTE=LJJ]You put up a cyclist and you put up Eddy Merckx. Lance Armstrong wouldn't even be on the Mt. Rushmore of cycling if there where 8 heads.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/images/alltime25graph.gif[/img]

Ok then you're correct in placing him above Lance... But can you explain how Lance Armstrong, who has the 3rd most points total in HOF designated races wouldn't make the [i]8 face[/i] Mount Rushmore of cycling?