I don’t think Germany are very good at rugby or cricket

edy the Germans are quite poor at sport , fact .

When you win the Tour de France come back and let me know

:)

ps it was kanakaziee who mentioned rugby and cricket , not me

edy " I don't think Rugby and cricket are even seriously played (or known) outside of GB and a bunch of former colonies"


OK. Rugby in Australia has the distinction of having a world record crowd for a match and also being the highest rated TV program in history (RWC 2003) despite being only the fourth most popular sport.

The point is that Aust and NZ and SA have superior win records over Britain despite having fewer players.

England has a population four times bigger than Australia yet has won about 30% of test matches.

Germans have got a lot more to worry about with their upcoming recession, the downfall of VW and Islam terror, but yeah they are terrible at sport aswell...

It's the BBC who are pushing Murray forward and have done so for years. Why?

Because Tennis (especially Wimbledon) is about the only major sport they show.

Justin Rose and Rory are worth a mention.

and that, dear, is the only thing that really matters. Sporting hubris.

You won't be laughing for long. Just you wait.

Join the queue.

to be considered a sporting great, firstly you need to be a real athlete, so that rules out a lot of machine-assisted sports like formula 1 etc
it also rules out a lot of so-called sports like snooker
and as for darts LOL. you can dress it up anyway you like, its a pub game, FFS.

So, I'd be looking at the Olympians first - Steve Redgrave is a good shout, one of the most physically demanding sports, and to do it over such a long period - longevity has to be a major consideration if we're talking GOATS. The bit that lets him down is that rowing is a minority sport - severe lack of competition (in terms of quantity anyway).
Then there's the runners - Mo Farrah, Seb Coe
the decathletes and heptathletes,  the cyclists, the swimmers

After that you'd have to consider boxers - the physical demands are as high as you can get, and its an Olympic sport. Problem is we haven't had many great ones.

then you have tennis,

then rugby, and football players.

I'd put tennis clearly ahead of any team sport, in terms of difficulty, physical demands, and level of competition.

What have I missed ?  Doubt there's anything more demanding than any of these sports mentioned.

Marita Koch

Aptly named! Took so much steroid she grew one!

It's a fair point.

I would counter by saying that table tennis is as much of a sport as tennis. Being less suitable for TV the legends of ping pong are largely unknown (outside of China).

Both tennis and snooker stars have benefitted massively from their suitability to TV. Their inability to appreciate such is a disappointment..

How can you say that aka?

Jockey would definitely have won Gold at the Olympics in the 100 Litres.

Andy Murray was a pro tennis player. he had a very successful career .
the vast majority of pro tennis players have been and will be less successful. hth

you are welcome

You have to take into account the level of competition around at the time, I'm not an expert on Darts but it seems to me only in the few years since a lot of money has come into the it has it attracted better players, whereas before it was more amateur and easier for the likes of Taylor who was very dedicated.

Murray has had to compete with the 3 greatest Tennis players of all time throughout the whole of their best years in their 20's and to win what he has won has been remarkable, it's true he really should have won more slams and he was worthy of more, leading the French Open final by a set, the 2nd and 3rd Aussie finals he was neck and neck with Novak first 2-3 sets then faded quickly, taken the first set v Federer at Wimbledon 2012 then they closed the roof which helped Roger, many other close calls in semi finals as well.

Then there's the Masters 1000's, the top 4 took them as seriously as the slams, for years hardly anyone outside the top 4 could get a look in, beteen 2005 and the end of 2016, something like 92 of the 108 where won by the top 4 with Murray winning 14 and beating those top 3 in the final 7 times, including against Nadal on clay his best surface in Madrid in straights.

The Olympic gold in 2012 carried a lot of weight to, he beat Djokovic in the semi's in straights then Federer in straights in the final, Federer has lost 11 finals of Best of 5 in his career but only twice in straights, and he wanted that gold badly, the only thing missing in his career.

The other 3 have had a much better career than Murray but not necessarily because they were much much better, but because they were mentally more sound in my opinion, time and again Murray would carry too much negative energy on court when things were not going right and often looking to his box to blame, Federer and Nadal never done that. Novak did but not for too long, talent wise he was never too far off at all - the exception of getting close to Nadal on clay, he's just in a league all on his own there. You can see this off court too, where he cried after the 12 Wimbledon final on court and in his retirement presser, he was never as emotionally stable as the top players.

If he had of been born 15-20 years earlier things could have been different, we could easily have been looking at mimimum of 10 slams.

I don't know about greatest British sportsman ever but he is in that conversation, I don't believe he ever fully fulfilled his potential, he could have won so much more, but a great career most tennis players will never have nonetheless.

Finally I am surprised at the abuse he does get, remember it's not a personality contest, it's about his talent, and he is/was on the best of his generation who for years, was truely the only 1 who could mix it with the top 3 consistently. He has also live in Britain that whole time a Pro paying millions in Tax rather than living in Monaco where he could easily have done, that and inspire many to pick up a racquet with all of the column inches and media attention he has generated, should be enough to warrent everyone's respect.

Edmund will not fill the void left by Murray imo, Murray was more dynamic a player so it will be many years til the next slam winner comes along, only during that period will people realise just how much Murray is missed, he will become more appreciated over time.

cracking post, Darren.