Top British sportsmen of all time

[Worthy4England]

Just so we're not clogging up the tennis thread

There might be a couple of posters had too much strawberry's and cream, postulating that some bloke hitting a ball back over a net might be the "greatest of all time." I mean they only run in a space about 27ft x 39ft, you'd tread more miles doing a night shift in an Amazon warehouse, so it's hardly even a job. Go out early, they're probably on 2 matches a month. All said in some jest.

As has been noted, it's tricky comparing across ages and solo v team sports, but I doubt it's an easy pick...I mean where does (at random based on litte though) Phil the Power Taylor sit in the pantheon? Mo Farah, Steve Redgrave, Lewis Hamilton multiple world titles. Someone mentioned Stokes too, better than Botham? WG Grace? Dunno.

I'm going to give a top 10 some thought...

[jimbo]

Cavendish would always be up there for me. To be the undisputed best in your discipline in the history of the sport, and by such a distance is extraordinary. He’s won 34 TDF stages. He next highest sprinter is still Andre Darrigade from the 1950s with 22. A lot of other people who will get mentioned here may have been the best of their era, but few will be so widely regarded as the greatest of all time.

[TANGODANCER]

Being the best at anything is a momentary thing generally. We've had Daley Thompson, Steve Cramm, Steve Ovett, Roger Bannister, Seb Coe, Linford Christie, Alan Wells etc,etc, all the best at their time. Jockey Gordon Richards rode 4,870 winners between 1921 and 1954, and Lester Piggott had 4,493 career flat racing wins in Britain. How do you judge between a 100 yard sprinter and the Brownlee brothers triathalon wins? In short, without categorising them, you can't.

Mo Farah and Paula Radcliffe have more medals between them than King Charles. My current greatest Brit is little Scottish middle distance runner Laura Muir, a real pocket rocket.

[BWFC_Insane]

I’d have Stokes somewhere in the list but it’s interesting that I would as would most. Averages 36 tests, 39 in ODIs with the bat with decent but not as good as Botham bowling stats.

Tough to really say he was or ever has been ‘best in the world’ and it’s definitely more his contribution.

[boltonboris]

Easier for me to pick on a sport by sport basis really. Very difficult to just say X is a better sportsman than Y. Is Athletic ability the key factor, or pure success in their field?

I'd also keep my picks for 'in my lifetime', so can't go for Best, Finney, WG Grace etc

Andy Murray - Probably one of the best tennis players of all time (both a gift and a curse that he was in the same era as Fed / Nadal / Djokovic etc)
Gareth Bale - One of the most decorated British footballers of all time and one of the 3 best in the world at one point
Phil Taylor - Dominant in his sport and untouchable for many years
Carl Foggarty - See above
Mo Farah

[TANGODANCER]

If we were categorising by sports and best sporting moments of all time, ( okay, I know we're not, just had to mention it) the Ben Stokes and Jack Read show just had to win the cricket slot. Unbeatable.....

[BWFC_Insane]

If we were categorising by sports and best sporting moments of all time, ( okay, I know we're not, just had to mention it) the Ben Stokes and Jack Read show just had to win the cricket slot. Unbeatable.....

Its not even the best moment Ben Stokes has had let alone the best sporting moment...

The 2019 world cup final win would easily surpass Headingley in 2019 as frankly we still lost the Ashes that year and indeed that was our only test win.

[TANGODANCER]

If we were categorising by sports and best sporting moments of all time, ( okay, I know we're not, just had to mention it) the Ben Stokes and Jack Read show just had to win the cricket slot. Unbeatable.....

Its not even the best moment Ben Stokes has had let alone the best sporting moment...

The 2019 world cup final win would easily surpass Headingley in 2019 as frankly we still lost the Ashes that year and indeed that was our only test win.

Oh, sorry. I forgot to add " for me".... ..

[Worthy4England]

If we were categorising by sports and best sporting moments of all time, ( okay, I know we're not, just had to mention it) the Ben Stokes and Jack Read show just had to win the cricket slot. Unbeatable.....

Its not even the best moment Ben Stokes has had let alone the best sporting moment...

The 2019 world cup final win would easily surpass Headingley in 2019 as frankly we still lost the Ashes that year and indeed that was our only test win.

I'm not sure you could be more incorrect on the latter bit. We drew the Ashes (so Australia retained them) and we won 2 of the 5 games, not 1. And before you roll out the dead rubber argument, I've yet to come across the Aussie team that didn't want, not just to win the Ashes, but do it by a 5-0 scoreline...

As to whether the WC win was bigger, I guess that's where you sit on the spectrum of one day cricket...For many, I have no doubt they'd rank it bigger, but many doesn't often sway me. There are more Manchester United fans than Bolton fans - just means there are more wrong 'uns in the world.

[BWFC_Insane]

If we were categorising by sports and best sporting moments of all time, ( okay, I know we're not, just had to mention it) the Ben Stokes and Jack Read show just had to win the cricket slot. Unbeatable.....

Its not even the best moment Ben Stokes has had let alone the best sporting moment...

The 2019 world cup final win would easily surpass Headingley in 2019 as frankly we still lost the Ashes that year and indeed that was our only test win.

I'm not sure you could be more incorrect on the latter bit. We drew the Ashes (so Australia retained them) and we won 2 of the 5 games, not 1. And before you roll out the dead rubber argument, I've yet to come across the Aussie team that didn't want, not just to win the Ashes, but do it by a 5-0 scoreline...

As to whether the WC win was bigger, I guess that's where you sit on the spectrum of one day cricket...For many, I have no doubt they'd rank it bigger, but many doesn't often sway me. There are more Manchester United fans than Bolton fans - just means there are more wrong 'uns in the world.

Winning a world cup, for the first time, absolutely trumps winning a test match in a series where we failed to win the ashes. For me its not even close.

And whether you like one day cricket or not - dragging your team over the line to win the trophy is much more significant than winning a test match in an ultimately unsuccessful series.

I'd absolutely have a decent internal debate over the 2005 ashes series vs the world cup win. That would be interesting. But can't seriously take a glorious moment in a singular test match over winning a world cup for the first time, especially in the circumstances we won it.

Be like arguing the 1990 was better than winning it in 66. I mean 1990 had some glorious moments we'll all remember but ultimately the measure has to be winning. For me at least.

[Worthy4England]

For you, yes.

I guess some of it depends on what you think the best test of cricketing competence is so I don't think the 1990 v 1966 comparison stands. How would you weigh the performance in 1990 v the International 5-a-side team? I'm going for 1990. The fact that we might have won the Rugby 7's doesn't weigh much for me against beating the All Blacks in the Autumn internationals. Similarly, in cricket, shorter form cricket in very few ways matches the technical excellence to win a test match - they're just not the same. That's not an argument around which is "more popular"....

[BWFC_Insane]

For you, yes.

I guess some of it depends on what you think the best test of cricketing competence is so I don't think the 1990 v 1966 comparison stands. How would you weigh the performance in 1990 v the International 5-a-side team? I'm going for 1990. The fact that we might have won the Rugby 7's doesn't weigh much for me against beating the All Blacks in the Autumn internationals. Similarly, in cricket, shorter form cricket in very few ways matches the technical excellence to win a test match - they're just not the same. That's not an argument around which is "more popular"....

I think there is a substantial difference in your examples - one day cricket is no less professionalised or resourced than test cricket especially in the last two decades. And I'd question the idea around technical excellence too. The excellence required is different sure. But not sure it is substantially less. Indeed many of the greatest test players are abjectly poor at one day stuff. Suggesting it isn't a case that one is necessarily of 'a lesser skill' than the other.

I absolutely put test cricket as my favourite form of the game. Because it produces drama in 5 days (or can) that is unparalleled and its also superb to watch games develop. But that's my favourite. I wouldn't argue that it takes less skill to play ODI cricket though - just a different skillset.

[Worthy4England]

For you, yes.

I guess some of it depends on what you think the best test of cricketing competence is so I don't think the 1990 v 1966 comparison stands. How would you weigh the performance in 1990 v the International 5-a-side team? I'm going for 1990. The fact that we might have won the Rugby 7's doesn't weigh much for me against beating the All Blacks in the Autumn internationals. Similarly, in cricket, shorter form cricket in very few ways matches the technical excellence to win a test match - they're just not the same. That's not an argument around which is "more popular"....

I think there is a substantial difference in your examples - one day cricket is no less professionalised or resourced than test cricket especially in the last two decades. And I'd question the idea around technical excellence too. The excellence required is different sure. But not sure it is substantially less. Indeed many of the greatest test players are abjectly poor at one day stuff. Suggesting it isn't a case that one is necessarily of 'a lesser skill' than the other.

I absolutely put test cricket as my favourite form of the game. Because it produces drama in 5 days (or can) that is unparalleled and its also superb to watch games develop. But that's my favourite. I wouldn't argue that it takes less skill to play ODI cricket though - just a different skillset.

The differences are too marked, to make it a meaningful comparison, I'd agree. But when the game limits how many overs a bowler can bowl, puts restrictions on fielding, uses a completely different ball etc. free hits etc. then whilst it has its own technical excellence, the purpose of these limits and rules is to encourage run scoring. All contrivances. About the only limit in longer form is the three behind square...Not the same game technically.

[BWFC_Insane]

For you, yes.

I guess some of it depends on what you think the best test of cricketing competence is so I don't think the 1990 v 1966 comparison stands. How would you weigh the performance in 1990 v the International 5-a-side team? I'm going for 1990. The fact that we might have won the Rugby 7's doesn't weigh much for me against beating the All Blacks in the Autumn internationals. Similarly, in cricket, shorter form cricket in very few ways matches the technical excellence to win a test match - they're just not the same. That's not an argument around which is "more popular"....

I think there is a substantial difference in your examples - one day cricket is no less professionalised or resourced than test cricket especially in the last two decades. And I'd question the idea around technical excellence too. The excellence required is different sure. But not sure it is substantially less. Indeed many of the greatest test players are abjectly poor at one day stuff. Suggesting it isn't a case that one is necessarily of 'a lesser skill' than the other.

I absolutely put test cricket as my favourite form of the game. Because it produces drama in 5 days (or can) that is unparalleled and its also superb to watch games develop. But that's my favourite. I wouldn't argue that it takes less skill to play ODI cricket though - just a different skillset.

The differences are too marked, to make it a meaningful comparison, I'd agree. But when the game limits how many overs a bowler can bowl, puts restrictions on fielding, uses a completely different ball etc. free hits etc. then whilst it has its own technical excellence, the purpose of these limits and rules is to encourage run scoring. All contrivances. About the only limit in longer form is the three behind square...Not the same game technically.

Yeah I think you can argue the games are divergent now. Though its interesting to me how many of England's side were a big part of the ODI world cup win...

Root, Stokes, Bairstow, Ali, Wood, Woakes - that's half a side. Were it not for injury you could assume Jofra would be involved too.

But that aside they are now very different games - the ODI game is almost unrecognisable to test matches. But I wouldn't say any easier to win or compete in and the skill levels required are equivalent. Bowlers in ODI's need a whole variety of balls compared to test matches for example and batting whilst it is prioritising run scoring generally requires a much broader range of strokes than many test players possess. I'd also argue that in the last 10 years its arguable that many players prioritise one day and short form over tests....meaning maybe winning a world cup is harder than a test series...maybe.....

[Worthy4England]

I don't see the equivalence at all. You need just as many varieties of balls in any form of cricket (apart from maybe the odd underarm we've seen used to win a match ). It's tricky to argue that the range of strokes is much broader in one than the other whilst at the same time pointing out that 7 of the team, including Jofra would have been the same. It's just that you might be less inclined to play some of those shots in a test match, in part because the fielding restrictions don't apply, so the risk reward on the shot selection changes.

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't see the equivalence at all. You need just as many varieties of balls in any form of cricket (apart from maybe the odd underarm we've seen used to win a match ). It's tricky to argue that the range of strokes is much broader in one than the other whilst at the same time pointing out that 7 of the team, including Jofra would have been the same. It's just that you might be less inclined to play some of those shots in a test match, in part because the fielding restrictions don't apply, so the risk reward on the shot selection changes.

There are many successful test bowlers who are only ever bowling outside off stump seam up to move it one way or another. And in test cricket you can be successful doing that if you're very good at it. You may have the odd bouncer or the odd full swinging delivery. Sure. But that doesn't necessarily translate to a slower delivery, an off cutter, the slow short ball stuff, yorkers, wide yorkers that we see commonly displayed by bowlers really proficient in the ODI formats. Often all in one over. That's equally as difficult as bowling six deliveries all within a few inches of each other.

Whilst its true that you see many more expansive strokes in test matches there are still players who bat in test match cricket relatively conventionally and do well. Yet in the one day game I don't think there are many spaces for players like that and even when there are they are encouraged to add the ramps, scoops, sweeps etc to their repertoire as for example Root has.

[Worthy4England]

I don't think the "locker" for balls in the armoury are any different. Because you're seeing a match where a bowler might bowl 20/25 overs then you see less of them. It's not that they're not in the locker, it's that the circumstances are different. I'm not sure when ODI bowlers come into the Test arena, you see the same variety per over when they're playing a test as when they're playing an ODI. If it was really successful in tests to bowl similar variety as ODI, they'd be doing a lot more of it...

There is also a limit to how many overs you're going to bowl in an innings. Bloke comes on and takes 3 for 3 in his 10th over, no pick that allows him an 11th.

[jimbo]

How about the Headingley innings was the best, while the one to win the World Cup was most important? Stokes is a moments rather than a numbers player. It’s what makes him fun, but means that just looking at averages doesn’t give a true picture.

[Prufrock]

I can see arguments either way but you absolutely can argue Headingley was bigger.. Bigger in its own right, and bigger in the contribution of Stokes.

He was obviously the most important player in the world cup, but there are a few others with big contributions too.

Headingley was one man defiance, and the most diverse, insane batting, every shot in the book every element of cricket. From something like 2 from 50 balls overnight, ticked along with the middle order, then supreme batting with the tail.

That switch hit 6 to the off side might be the best cricket shot of all time. 76 run partnership with Leach (1*).

Not to mention the daft 16 over unbroken spell the day before.

Frankly they're two, once in a life time innings, in the two biggest games of each format (and his T20 final knock wasn't bad!). That's why he's the greatest cricketer we've ever had for me. It's more than just (good, but unremarkable) averages. But the absolute biggest moments where you think how on earth can you do that.

[Worthy4England]

How about the Headingley innings was the best, while the one to win the World Cup was most important? Stokes is a moments rather than a numbers player. It’s what makes him fun, but means that just looking at averages doesn’t give a true picture.

Agree on the averages thing. Nothing better than watching the opener score 40 in 40, whilst leaving you 120 to get in 10! I can't be the only bloke to have given the direction to the next batsman "take all the strike or run him out, I don't care which"