- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Am I the only sports fan who is getting heartily sick of the overuse of the word “great” to describe our sportmen and their achievements?
The overuse of these words cheapens the currency of sports terminology, making comparisons beteen sporting stars essentially meaningless.
I recently heard a scribe describe Lance Franklin as an all-time great. Really? While Lance can be capable of breathtaking patches of play, a studied analysis wouldn’t place Lance in the top three full forwards of even the last 30 years – Messrs Lockett, Ablett and Dunstall have those positions safely locked up.
When we broaden our scope over a wider time period, names such as John Coleman, Doug Wade, Gordon Coventry, and Bob Pratt enter the mix.
Lance may one day make that company, depending on how his career pans out. But at the moment he is a very good player, and probably the best full-forward currently playing, neither of which qualify him to be included on a list of great players.
So how should we define greatness? What are the parameters? After a lifetime following many sports, I have come up with five criteria.
1. Competence
Obviously you have to be good at what you do, regardless of the context. It is obvious, but it needs to be said. Sportsmen like Roger Federer, Jack Nicklaus, and Muhammad Ali clearly fulfill this criteria. Greg Norman doesn’t – he choked too often under routine golfing pressure to be considred great.
2. Abundance
You have to win a lot of times at what you do. Again Federer is a good example, with 17 Grand Slams, as opposed to someone like Pat Rafter who won two. Federer is an all-time great while Rafter had a couple of good years. Michael Schumacher is an all-time great, with his seven F1 championships, while Jenson Button is simply a good driver.
3. Variety
True greatness is demonstrated in a variety of cirumstances and a variety of environments. Tiger Woods and Gary Player have won tournaments on most continents and in many countries. Rafael Nadal has won all four grand slam finals, and while Djokovic is currently the best player in the world at the moment, can’t be considered a great unless he wins the French. The threshold for greatness should be very high and we should not apologise for it.
4.Longevity
To be considered truly great, you need to demonstrate competence, abundance and variety over a lengthy period of time. John Eales was playing the same standard of rugby in his last year as he did in his first year – a truly great player. Jack Nicklaus won majors over a 24 year period, yet people are calling Rory McIlroy an all-time great.
McIlroy has only been around five minutes – seriously folks, lets take a collective cold shower. Revisit Lance Franklin in eight years’ time – remember Gary Ablett kicked a century three times after the age of 30.
5. Context
Often the meaure of sporting greatness will depend upon the quality of the oppostion almost just as much as the quality of the sporting performance. Some sportsmen are just plain lucky that their timing was perfect – for example, Matthew Hayden barely faced a pace bowler of any quality for the majority of his career.
His early adventures against Curtley Ambrose and Allan Donald were feeble, and when an inferior wave of bowlers came along, he truly cashed in. Byron Nelson won 11 golf tournaments in a row in the 1940s, however the quality opposition was serving in the war. Context is rarely thought of, but in my view it is terribly important.
That’s my thesis. I will be very interested in what other aficionados think. Unless we stomp upon this excessive zeal of misidentifying sporting greatness, then the great will outnumber the good, and that would be the height of absurdity.
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.