Every now and then, sports fans get into heated debates over something that – in the grand scheme of things – is essentially pointless and probably even a little bit silly.
Be that as it may, such discussions remain fun conversations, and some of the very best sporting debates involve arguing about who was a better player between two particular athletes.
Tom Brady versus Peyton Manning.
Larry Bird versus Magic Johnson.
Sachin Tendulkar versus Ricky Ponting.
Johnathan Thurston versus Andrew Johns.
While these arguments often come from a place of sporting knowledge, arriving at a definitive conclusion is a generally futile task, as they frequently have no right or wrong answer.
Likewise, opinions are often based on biased emotion rather than rational thinking. While everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, such attitudes are normally formed well removed from objectivity, which isn’t a great starting point for an argument.
However, when it comes to sport, for as long as there is a scoreboard, winning should factor into the conversation of who was a better player.
The point of the contest is to achieve a victory, so winning is a key variable that needs to be included in the debate.
Winning matters. Period.
It’s why the correct answers to the above debates above are ‘Brady’, ‘Magic’, ‘Ponting’ and ‘not sure’.
Winning is the dealbreaker in every ‘who was better?’ argument. It may not be fair, but here’s a spoiler for you – life isn’t fair.
Maybe Manning wasn’t afforded the luxury of having a genius like Bill Belichick coach him during his career. Tough.
There is no question that Bird’s career was cruelled by injuries, along with the sad death of Len Bias. Unfortunate.
Tendulkar never had the good fortune of Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne in his team. Bad luck.
The JT versus Joey debate isn’t quite so clear-cut, now that Thurston has won a premiership, and played in nine winning State of Origin sides. You could mount a solid case for either legend, though I still have Johns slightly in front.
Of course, it’s worthwhile pointing out that I’m a Pats and Lakers fan from New South Wales. This may affect my adjudication on those aforementioned debates.
Yet winning is a key factor when deciding who was a better player. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s the deciding factor, especially when it’s hard to separate individuals based on their other accomplishments.
Take the Bird versus Magic conundrum.
Based on statistics, MVP awards, impact on the league, general level of play, and any other non-championship variable you want to include, they’re essentially neck-and-neck when it comes to their greatness.
Then you throw in Magic’s five titles to Bird’s three, and Magic gets the nod. Add in the fact the Laker point guard made the NBA Finals nine times to Bird’s five, and I’m shutting the gate on that debate.
Winning is as close to empirical as you can get.
Whenever winning is used as a fact in these types of debates, inevitably the ‘ringz’ comment will be bandied about, sarcastically used to mock a player’s championships, premierships, etc, as if to suggest that wins shouldn’t be used as an important variable.
If the argument is that winning alone shouldn’t define a player’s greatness, then I agree.
After all, Eli Manning is not the equal of his older brother Peyton, and Robert Horry is certainly not better than Michael Jordan.
However, to ignore winning is just plain ludicrous.
Deciding a player’s greatness in relation to another’s should encompass all their achievements and play, with winning then casting the ‘deciding vote’.
You can choose to factor in lesser teammates, bad coaches, and poor luck if you like. However, all of these play in the world of hypotheticals, which alters the conversation dramatically, and shifts it into the world of fantasy and ‘what ifs?’. It takes a topic that is already living in a grey area and moves it into an uber grey area.
To be clear, there is no exact science here, no set magic formula for determining such debates, and often not a definitive answer. It’s actually what makes such conversations so enjoyable.
However, I’ll always value winning as something that can separate all-time greats.
Well, as long as it suits my argument, anyway.
New York Hawk
Guest
All Pats fans living in Australia are bandwagon jumpers, unless their parents or other relatives were Pats fans, or they had the sad misfortune of living in Boston for a period of time. Or if you followed them pre-1999. As a proud and long-suffering JETS fan, being a bandwagon-jumper is something I am extremely unlikely to be ever labeled....
JGK
Roar Guru
Therefore Longley > LeBron or Dirk.
Seriously
Guest
The Dan Marino argument. One of the greatest QBs of all time. Never won the big game. Despite his prestigious talent, names like Montana, Steve Young, Elway always get more sparkle against their names because of the Super Bowl wins.
monday QB
Guest
We're into the realms of oversimplification now...apparently it's as easy as that Manning and BB and it's a lock for 5 Super Bowls. Is the answer to the Brady question also 5? Can we see a photo of your crystal ball?
pete bloor
Guest
Peyton was definitely the worst from that season
OJP
Guest
I cant agree that Flacco was the least deserving QB to win a Superbowl; Flacco was awesome that playoff run when the Ravens won. without looking it up, he put up something like a 11-1 TD / INT ratio throughout the playoffs and consistently connected on the deep ball. Thats why the Ravens paid him so much the following summer and why its so frustrating for Ravens fans (nb that doesnt include me - I follow 'America's team - the Buffalo Bills!) that he hasnt performed at that level consistently since, but he hasnt been a train wreck either. I reckon Trent Dilfer is the 'least deserving' at least in the time I have been paying attention (lets call that 25 years). Other than Marino as the best who never won, you could possible argue for Jim Kelly who should get bonus points for repping 'America's team'. cheers OJP
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
No, as Pete mentioned above, it's a horrible way to decide someone's greatness! But as I said, what makes these debates so fun is that they're so hard to definitively answer.
Ryan
Guest
Filthy patriots fans
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Agree. Flacco and Dan the Man - assuming you meant the QB who never won a Super Bowl? Although you could make a case for Peyton on Monday (based on his season, rather than his career).
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Very fair points, Sheek.
Moose
Guest
Speaking of which who was the least worthy QB to win a Super Bowl and who was the best that did. I vote Flaco and Marino
sheek
Roar Guru
Ryan, The concept of winning as critical to overall greatness is like almost all other measures, flawed at some point or another. Some years ago, I wrote about the winningest Wallabies. John Eales, as expected, was tops. But just shy of him was Jason Little, who played in many of the same great teams as Eales. Now complicating Little's position was that about 20-odd of his 70-odd tests was off the bench, most of these coming at the back-end of his career when replaced in the starting XV by a younger Dan Herbert. Now plenty of Wallabies fans might prefer Herbert or Stirling Mortlock to Little, but I've always felt he was the best in the position for the past 30 years. Technically & athletically, he was without peer, he played his position (outside centre) to textbook perfection. Of course, this is another conundrum. Sometimes I'll pick players on their technical prowess (eg, Brendan Moon, Ben Tune) but on other occasions I'll go for the X-Factor, or unpredictable maverick (eg, David Campese, Joe Roff). It just depends on how the individual expressed his brilliance. If winning is the main criteria, then Mark Ella is also stuffed, with both Michael Lynagh & Steve Larkham finishing with superior winning records. And the great, rampaging eightman Mark Loane wouldn't even get a look in. Then there's Allan Border, who held the Aussie cricket team together almost singlehandedly for about 2-3 years before a quorum of quality players arrived to help him out. For winning, Border is way shy of Steve Waugh, Ricky Ponting & Michael Clarke, but he's top when viewed on other qualities. So it appears there's never one easy why to select the best of the best. Allowing for all the tongue in cheek, of course.....
Chaos
Guest
Just noting without Robert Horry and his Big Shots, Kobe all of a sudden loses a ring or two. Duncan/Parker/Manu have one less. Olajuwon never gets his. LeBron needed Ray Allen to get his second ring when Spurs had all but won game 6. Even Jordan needed Paxton & Kerr to hit the odd game 6 winning shot. Is rings really the determining factor in Champions when they aren't necessarily making the final shot?
pete bloor
Guest
Ah well I believe it to be lazy. Personally if after looking at decent information you can't determine is they were that different then they probably aren't materially different and any attempt to force rank them is going to be riddled with error. A – it assumes the individual is solely responsible for team success (despite in the NFL no player playing more than 50% of the game when you factor in special teams) B – it assumes a level of validity to using playoffs for selecting the “best” team, which in the NFL is laughable and been dismissed time and time again using basic concepts from high school math C – it assumes the external factors at play year to year are consistent D – it assumes that the quality of all other teams in the NFL is perfectly consistent Another variable that never gets overlaid is how we think about salary caps. Is the best player the one who was valued the highest, even if in a perfect market the mere act of paying him more should immediately handicap him by the equivalent talent gap by providing worse team mates.
pete bloor
Guest
Even in Basketball take Jordan, the highest use age rate player in NBA history - still only "used" about 35% of possessions when he was on court in the playoffs (for around 42 minutes a game) so even if Michael Jordan defended himself he was the executor around 31% of the time. Yes the other 69% he's still contributing... but in the exact same way the 4 other guys were contributing for his 31%. Turns out team sports are won by teams
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Nah, you're wrong. I don't dismiss it. At all. When two players are neck and neck on most other variables, winning is what separates them. That's what I believe.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
The tongue was firmly in the cheek as I wrote that, but thanks for taking the bait anyway. And is a Patriots fans really giving a Patriots fan grief about being a bandwagoner? What, we eat our own now?!
no one in particular
Roar Guru
Correct. Manning with Belichick get 5 . How many does Brady have with Dungy, Caldwell and Fox?
Patriot Man
Guest
You must have forgotten the Patriots SB victory in 2001 where Brady barely did a thing? Were you a fan then? Or jump on in 2003 and 2004 like everyone else? If it weren't for the Tuck Rule and The Butler interception Tom would have the same amount of ringz as Manning. In basketball it is different because players on the court play offense and defense. NFL is a different beast.
pete bloor
Guest
You say that but then kind of dismiss it with the rest of the article. The "life's not fair" was basically going I know what I'm doing is wrong but I just can not be bothered to think about it.