Ali, Federer, Tendulkar, Bolt and Pele are just a few of the sportsmen who many would consider the greatest, each displaying longevity, charisma and mental strength combined with those moments of genius which seemed to occur more than with their closest rivals.
But what makes them the greatest?
Muhammad Ali is widely recognised as the sportsman of the century. Not because he was undefeated; although 3 of the defeats in his 56-5 career were after he should have retired, he lost to Joe Frazier in the fight of the century, but because he combined a stunning career with an even more incredible persona outside of the ring. Statistically, he is not even the greatest of his era. George Foreman, defeated by Ali in the Rumble in the Jungle, boasts an astonishing 76-5 record in a career where he not only fought Ali but also Smokin' Joe twice, an far cry from the talent-starved heavyweight division of today. Perhaps Ali's records against these greats made him the best around, but it is without doubt his character which makes him admired so firmly as the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time. The greatest require a unique personality.
The current generation in male tennis has surely only been paralleled by that of Borg, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl. Tennis fans of today are truly blessed to have seen Murray, Nadal and Djokovic play against the legend that is Roger Federer. In fact, Nadal has a 22-10 head-to-head lead, whilst Murray has a 11-9 one. Djokovic narrowly trails 15-16. And all of those players, had they played in the years when Federer was the only great player, could have something like his 17 grand-slam titles.
Yet, to my mind, Roger reins king of them all. The others are physical marvels with incredible skill, too, but Federer didn't need to rely on pace or power. When you can find the line at will, dip balls over the net at alarming angles, and get so used to winning that there's no longer any pressure on, why would you need to? The other three have positive records against him, and may even win more slams than the great man himself. But none of them quite have the ability to make the audience gasp in astonishment like Federer did. The greatest require genius.
Sachin Tendulkar's greatness is astonishingly similar. It is once again built on the concept of "the most" and the "can-you-believe-your-eyes" genius. Just like the Swiss maestro. In the same way Fed's head-to-heads do not indicate being the greatest, neither is Sachin's average. It's behind those of Sangakarra and Kallis, probably the other two best batsmen in the world now that Dravid, Lara and Ponting have gone, and miles behind Bradman's, easily the best batsman the world has ever and will ever see
But THAT on drive. The ease with which he found the gaps. Nearly 16000 test runs, 18426 ODI runs, 100 international centuries, one world cup, higher averages in Australia than India, all make him the greatest. Not the best - that is forever reserved for the Don - but the greatest. Constantly performing and adapting and laying down the marker in an era where a good ODI score has moved from 230 to 300, where bowlers have ranged from Akram and Younis, Warne and McGrath, Ambrose and Walsh, Murali, Steyn and Anderson. That requires greatness. But most importantly, Sachin represents India. That's pressure, that's greatness. A country starved of sporting icons, one that's moving up from relatively little to a global superpower. Indian cricket represents this. Sachin represents this. And dealing with that pressure, and performing throughout it, is what makes him the greatest icon the game will ever see. The greatest require the ability to perform under immense pressure.
Bolt performs under pressure. His times in the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2009 Berlin World Championships are 9.69 (100m) and 19.30 (200m), and 9.58 and 19.19 respectively. Not to mention countless 4x100m relay world records as part of an invincible Jamaican team. And he's got character. Lots of it. AND he has undeniable genius. But there is a lot more than appears to the eye. Behind the facade of a wonderfully relaxed, beautifully arrogant champion who wins Olympic gold despite slowing down, eating chicken nuggets and having untied shoelaces, there is incredibly hard work. Yes, that's right, Bolt does not just wake up, listen to his fans cheer and break world records for fun. For a man who by his own admission hates training, taking it easy by running 180m four times a day, hitting sub-18 seconds, is not what you would expect. But he does it despite his hatred because he has a hunger, a desire, almost a greed to be the absolute best at all times. That is what makes this freak of nature the greatest. Not his times, but him and his attitude. Greatness requires devotion.
I'm a Maradonna fan. The best player, in terms of skill, to play football by a long shot. Go on youtube and look at his videos if you don't believe me. But, despite being the most skilful, he is not the greatest. It's hard enough as it is to argue with someone who scores more than 1000 goals in their career. Add to that 3 FIFA World Cups and the task seems futile. But to me, Pele is the greatest because, unlike Maradonna, he stayed free of controversy. As the worlds best footballer, that must be pretty hard to do. And yet no one seems to have any problem with him. He has a spark of arrogance - "ask me that question when he has 1000 goals and 3 world cup winners medals" was his reaction to being asked it Messi was better than him - but by and large, he handles himself with decency and pride. All the sports commentators, both his contemporaries and ours, have nothing to say about him other than the highest praise. That makes him the greatest to me. A man who played football simply because he loved it, and, as a result, became the best in not only his fans' eyes, but everyone elses, too. Greatness requires a person who command
People will always debate whether the above are in fact the best ever in their respective sports. I would argue that one or two of them aren't. But greatest and best are not synonymous. The best are simply the finest at playing the game, dominating those around them and the records of those before. Setting standards which appear at best improbable, and at most times impossible, to reach, let alone beat. But greatness requires that little bit more. It requires a story. It needs you to represent something. It is a result of genius combined with unrelenting hard work and determination. It is reserved for those who, when all seems lost, pull that little bit extra out of the bag and somehow walk away with the ultimate success. It is reserved for those who we will always be talking about, always for the right reasons, and those performers we will never forget.
Bradman or Tendulkar, Federer or Borg, Pele or Diego, and Ali or Lewis are all interesting questions with many possible answers. But no one could question Muhammad Ali when he looked at that camera and declared, with absolute certainty, "I am the greatest".
Sunday, 17 November 2013
Friday, 15 November 2013
The real heroes
Over the past few days (and arguably decades) one name has been on the lips of every boy in India. Sachin Tendulkar. The man who has carried the dreams of a nation, whose rise and success has almost mirrored that of his country, and who continues to attract the adoration of young and old alike both in his homeland and across the world. An idol? Certainly. An role model? No doubt. A legend? Probably. The greatest? Arguably. But a hero? Hmmm.
Coined in English in 1387, "hero" comes from the Greek "heros", literally "protector" or "defender". Later, it became used for those who, in the face of adversity, displayed courage and the will for self-sacrifice. Now, in the Oxford English dictionary, is is described as a "person admired for their courage, outstanding achievements or noble qualities".
To me, the real meaning of hero is someone who displays genuine courage and determination in times of danger to help others. As dangerous as facing Akhtar or Lee from 22 yards on a bouncy pitch may be, and as courageous as one may need to be to stand in between them and the target (that said, YOU might actually be their target), I can't help but feel that someone cannot truly be described as a hero for their ability to wield a piece of willow. Heroes are the people who go that extra step. Not maximise their talent or fulfil their potential, but genuinely go above and beyond what you would ever expect of them.
So who are these real heroes?
Everyone deserves at least two. These are the people commonly know as "mum and dad". I appreciate not everyone gets these in the capacity that they'd like, and even then, not everyone sees theirs as heroic, but everyone deserves to have them. I certainly can't imagine my life without mine. And so, isn't it a little bit offensive to then call someone a hero who has not done one billionth as much for us as they have?
Someone told me that Steven Gerrard was more of a hero to him than his parents. Not because he loved or respected the England captain even vaguely as much as he does for his family, but because, in his eyes, he looks up to Gerrard more. I don't think that makes a hero. That makes a role model. Heroes are the people who do a lot for us, who protect and look after us, and that makes a distinction between the two adjectives.
This week, we have been celebrating the true heroes. The people who ran into crossfire to cover for a friend behind. The people who flew planes into waves of anti-aircraft fire to protect their families and the families of millions of others. Even the people who worked tirelessly, day and night, at Bletchley Park to crack the enigma code. But these heroes do not stop there. Whether you agree with us being in the Middle East or not, you cannot forget the people out there who put their lives on the line because they genuinely believe they are doing good for the world, the people of Afghanistan and us back home. We must remember them too. They are heroes.
The nurses who work long hours for relatively little pay, yet still feel the duty to make each and every patient as safe and comfortable as they can be. They're heroes. The firefighters, policemen, paramedics and coastguards who are willing to enter burning buildings or flooding lakes to save others are people who I consider to be heroes. And these people are definitely heroes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRWHBRPgtIo
Finally, who could forget your best friends or your siblings? The ones who would be there to look after you almost unconditionally, who would have your back in any situation, or who simply make you laugh when no one else can. They are really heroic too.
Sachin Tendulkar is without doubt someone that kids all around the world can look up to. A lot of what he has done can be applied to be successful way beyond cricket. A hard work ethic, a determination to maximise his potential, modesty - these are all things we should look to incorporate into our own lives. He is an absolute superstar and a fine role model.
But my heroes don't appear on TV.
Coined in English in 1387, "hero" comes from the Greek "heros", literally "protector" or "defender". Later, it became used for those who, in the face of adversity, displayed courage and the will for self-sacrifice. Now, in the Oxford English dictionary, is is described as a "person admired for their courage, outstanding achievements or noble qualities".
To me, the real meaning of hero is someone who displays genuine courage and determination in times of danger to help others. As dangerous as facing Akhtar or Lee from 22 yards on a bouncy pitch may be, and as courageous as one may need to be to stand in between them and the target (that said, YOU might actually be their target), I can't help but feel that someone cannot truly be described as a hero for their ability to wield a piece of willow. Heroes are the people who go that extra step. Not maximise their talent or fulfil their potential, but genuinely go above and beyond what you would ever expect of them.
So who are these real heroes?
Everyone deserves at least two. These are the people commonly know as "mum and dad". I appreciate not everyone gets these in the capacity that they'd like, and even then, not everyone sees theirs as heroic, but everyone deserves to have them. I certainly can't imagine my life without mine. And so, isn't it a little bit offensive to then call someone a hero who has not done one billionth as much for us as they have?
Someone told me that Steven Gerrard was more of a hero to him than his parents. Not because he loved or respected the England captain even vaguely as much as he does for his family, but because, in his eyes, he looks up to Gerrard more. I don't think that makes a hero. That makes a role model. Heroes are the people who do a lot for us, who protect and look after us, and that makes a distinction between the two adjectives.
This week, we have been celebrating the true heroes. The people who ran into crossfire to cover for a friend behind. The people who flew planes into waves of anti-aircraft fire to protect their families and the families of millions of others. Even the people who worked tirelessly, day and night, at Bletchley Park to crack the enigma code. But these heroes do not stop there. Whether you agree with us being in the Middle East or not, you cannot forget the people out there who put their lives on the line because they genuinely believe they are doing good for the world, the people of Afghanistan and us back home. We must remember them too. They are heroes.
The nurses who work long hours for relatively little pay, yet still feel the duty to make each and every patient as safe and comfortable as they can be. They're heroes. The firefighters, policemen, paramedics and coastguards who are willing to enter burning buildings or flooding lakes to save others are people who I consider to be heroes. And these people are definitely heroes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRWHBRPgtIo
Finally, who could forget your best friends or your siblings? The ones who would be there to look after you almost unconditionally, who would have your back in any situation, or who simply make you laugh when no one else can. They are really heroic too.
Sachin Tendulkar is without doubt someone that kids all around the world can look up to. A lot of what he has done can be applied to be successful way beyond cricket. A hard work ethic, a determination to maximise his potential, modesty - these are all things we should look to incorporate into our own lives. He is an absolute superstar and a fine role model.
But my heroes don't appear on TV.
Saturday, 2 November 2013
The balance between bat and ball: looking beyond the numbers
ON SATURDAY, ROHIT SHARMA BECAME ONLY THE THIRD MAN TO SCORE A DOUBLE CENTURY IN ONE DAY CRICKET. Granted, this is an astonishing feat and an achievement that should not be taken lightly. However, as is often the case when one enters an elite group, the initial reaction is to compare the new recruit with the current members. It is obvious to any follower of the game, fanatical or part-time, that Rohit does not possess the ability to play glorious shots around the ground all day like Mr Tendulkar, nor does he strike fear into the bowlers hearts as soon as he passes 30 like Sehwag did in his prime. Bowling to either of those must have made even the most skillfull of bowlers think at times, "it's going to be a long day".
And yet, despite his technique and ever growing confidence, I cannot imagine that Rohit has the same effect. When he hits a cover drive for 4 in the 3rd over, the bowlers may think, hey, I've got a chance next ball. Maybe the TV audience at home get up to make a coffee. When Tendulkar, Sehwag or any of the other superstars of the game did it, millions around the world remained glued to their TV sets in anticipation of the probable carnage to follow, wishing they were at the stadium. The bowling side, conversely, probably wished they were at home.
So why has ROHIT got into the 200 club? Or more importantly, how? Granted, the god-like status may be yet to come, but for many years a lot of people have just thought he didn't quite have enough for the top level. He may have improved since then, with experience, practise and calming of nerves, but has he improved THAT much? No doubt he's class, but I suspect the answer may be "no".
In the 11 completed innings this series, 300 has been passed on NINE occasions. One of the other occasions was an Aussie 295, and the 350 mark was chased on two occasions. Even in the t20, both sides passed 200. In every game, records were not just broken. They were smashed. Across the series we've seen 2 of the 3 highest run chases ever, the fastest hundreds by an Indian and an Australian, and the most sixes ever hit in an international game of cricket. This points to one thing: a pretty damn good series for the batsmen.
There are three theories for this, concerning batting, bowling and the playing conditions (both the physical and the written rules). Theory A: Awful bowling. There is no denying that Ishant was poor, and I'm still stumped as to why Vinnay Kumar has ever been picked for the national side (pun intended). Yet Bhuvneshwar bowls with great control, Shami is certainly brisk, and Ashwin is the premier spinner in a country that, on the odd chance it favours the bowlers at all, has turning tracks. Likewise, Australia fielded the likes of Mitchell Johnson and Clint McKay, certainly international quality bowlers, and yet they still got smashed from Mumbai to Kolkata in every game.
Perhaps this is then all due to the batting. But when you look down the teams, there is no Ponting, Gilchrist, Hussey, Langer, Hayden, Tendulkar, Sehwag, Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman...not a single batsman who I think at the moment is world class and deserving of these scores and feats. Maybe this is harsh on Dhoni and Kohli, phenomenal one day players, but they don't quite enter the same bracket as the aforementioned lot just yet.
So that just leaves the conditions. India is known for small boundaries - there's nothing you can do about that, and batter-friendly surfaces, which may be manipulated but I'm not sure how much. Given these facts are known, you'd expect the ICC to have rules assisting the bowlers in a (bats)man's world. WRONG. Instead, to replace the bowling power-play, they've introduced a maximum of 4 fielders on the boundary. Now teams have to have 3rd man and fine leg in the circle so any wayward delivery inevitably goes for 4. Even having 2 new balls - intended to help the swing bowlers - just means that the ball is harder (thus going further) and less likely to reverse swing at the end. And let us not forget the bats that are hitting these balls; huge high-tech pieces of willow (apparently!) use to deposit bowlers over the rope again and again. These issues create cricket which is not sustainable. Soon (some would argue it's already happened) the extraordinary will become ordinary. 250 used to be a safe score when Sachin started his career. Now, as the megastar prepares to retire, it appears that that is barely defendable. The ICC needs to look at itself and really ensure that cricket becomes a bat AND ball game. 300 needs to be special and the attraction of a low scorer where a batsman does well to win the match with a stunning 50 from 80 balls (yes you read that right!) must remain. People come to see skill and players being tested to their limits. That is what will bring people in in the long run. A specatcle need not be expected but instead unique so that it can be cherished. Rohit Sharma played well but I'm afraid he's not a 200 player. The ICC must sort this or else Dhoni's prophercy may become reality - we may just as well have a bowling machine! I continue to wonder, who the hell would ever want to be a bowler?!
And yet, despite his technique and ever growing confidence, I cannot imagine that Rohit has the same effect. When he hits a cover drive for 4 in the 3rd over, the bowlers may think, hey, I've got a chance next ball. Maybe the TV audience at home get up to make a coffee. When Tendulkar, Sehwag or any of the other superstars of the game did it, millions around the world remained glued to their TV sets in anticipation of the probable carnage to follow, wishing they were at the stadium. The bowling side, conversely, probably wished they were at home.
So why has ROHIT got into the 200 club? Or more importantly, how? Granted, the god-like status may be yet to come, but for many years a lot of people have just thought he didn't quite have enough for the top level. He may have improved since then, with experience, practise and calming of nerves, but has he improved THAT much? No doubt he's class, but I suspect the answer may be "no".
In the 11 completed innings this series, 300 has been passed on NINE occasions. One of the other occasions was an Aussie 295, and the 350 mark was chased on two occasions. Even in the t20, both sides passed 200. In every game, records were not just broken. They were smashed. Across the series we've seen 2 of the 3 highest run chases ever, the fastest hundreds by an Indian and an Australian, and the most sixes ever hit in an international game of cricket. This points to one thing: a pretty damn good series for the batsmen.
There are three theories for this, concerning batting, bowling and the playing conditions (both the physical and the written rules). Theory A: Awful bowling. There is no denying that Ishant was poor, and I'm still stumped as to why Vinnay Kumar has ever been picked for the national side (pun intended). Yet Bhuvneshwar bowls with great control, Shami is certainly brisk, and Ashwin is the premier spinner in a country that, on the odd chance it favours the bowlers at all, has turning tracks. Likewise, Australia fielded the likes of Mitchell Johnson and Clint McKay, certainly international quality bowlers, and yet they still got smashed from Mumbai to Kolkata in every game.
Perhaps this is then all due to the batting. But when you look down the teams, there is no Ponting, Gilchrist, Hussey, Langer, Hayden, Tendulkar, Sehwag, Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman...not a single batsman who I think at the moment is world class and deserving of these scores and feats. Maybe this is harsh on Dhoni and Kohli, phenomenal one day players, but they don't quite enter the same bracket as the aforementioned lot just yet.
So that just leaves the conditions. India is known for small boundaries - there's nothing you can do about that, and batter-friendly surfaces, which may be manipulated but I'm not sure how much. Given these facts are known, you'd expect the ICC to have rules assisting the bowlers in a (bats)man's world. WRONG. Instead, to replace the bowling power-play, they've introduced a maximum of 4 fielders on the boundary. Now teams have to have 3rd man and fine leg in the circle so any wayward delivery inevitably goes for 4. Even having 2 new balls - intended to help the swing bowlers - just means that the ball is harder (thus going further) and less likely to reverse swing at the end. And let us not forget the bats that are hitting these balls; huge high-tech pieces of willow (apparently!) use to deposit bowlers over the rope again and again. These issues create cricket which is not sustainable. Soon (some would argue it's already happened) the extraordinary will become ordinary. 250 used to be a safe score when Sachin started his career. Now, as the megastar prepares to retire, it appears that that is barely defendable. The ICC needs to look at itself and really ensure that cricket becomes a bat AND ball game. 300 needs to be special and the attraction of a low scorer where a batsman does well to win the match with a stunning 50 from 80 balls (yes you read that right!) must remain. People come to see skill and players being tested to their limits. That is what will bring people in in the long run. A specatcle need not be expected but instead unique so that it can be cherished. Rohit Sharma played well but I'm afraid he's not a 200 player. The ICC must sort this or else Dhoni's prophercy may become reality - we may just as well have a bowling machine! I continue to wonder, who the hell would ever want to be a bowler?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)