Tennis, anyone.....?

[Worthy4England]

Disadvantages? Starter for 10, worked down a pit like Nat? Moved to Barcelona in his teens to improve his tennis? Give your fcuking head a shake.

Disadvantages have to be weighed relative to his peers. Not relative to a footballer from the 1950’s.

He wasn’t in a tennis academy from the age of 11/12 like most of his peers or a product of the Swiss tennis federation. He lived in Scotland - hardly a hotbed of tennis success and the worst possible conditions.

He survived the worst school massacre in British history and the mental scars from that alone must be massive.

He was born with significant undiagnosed knee injury where his kneecaps didn’t fuse together. The result of which has caused many of his injury issues in his career and meant he was always disadvantaged in terms of reaching full fitness. He played in pain without it being known why till he was 16.

He rose to win grand slams and number one in a sport you have to go back to pre World War Two to find the last Brit to do so. Clearly against massive structural disadvantages.

He also won in an era of the greatest players ever to play the game. And not just one. Three of the buggers. World number one, double Olympic gold singles medalist (only one in the history of the sport), 3 grand slams. He made the top of a sport against pretty much all odds.

So there will be zero head wobbling here.

If you can't compare across the ages, then you can't find the greatest of all time, so it sort of doesn't matter. He'd probably make my top 50.

[BWFC_Insane]

Disadvantages? Starter for 10, worked down a pit like Nat? Moved to Barcelona in his teens to improve his tennis? Give your fcuking head a shake.

Disadvantages have to be weighed relative to his peers. Not relative to a footballer from the 1950’s.

He wasn’t in a tennis academy from the age of 11/12 like most of his peers or a product of the Swiss tennis federation. He lived in Scotland - hardly a hotbed of tennis success and the worst possible conditions.

He survived the worst school massacre in British history and the mental scars from that alone must be massive.

He was born with significant undiagnosed knee injury where his kneecaps didn’t fuse together. The result of which has caused many of his injury issues in his career and meant he was always disadvantaged in terms of reaching full fitness. He played in pain without it being known why till he was 16.

He rose to win grand slams and number one in a sport you have to go back to pre World War Two to find the last Brit to do so. Clearly against massive structural disadvantages.

He also won in an era of the greatest players ever to play the game. And not just one. Three of the buggers. World number one, double Olympic gold singles medalist (only one in the history of the sport), 3 grand slams. He made the top of a sport against pretty much all odds.

So there will be zero head wobbling here.

If you can't compare across the ages, then you can't find the greatest of all time, so it sort of doesn't matter. He'd probably make my top 50.

You compare to their situations relative to their sport. I also don’t remember Nat ever winning a trophy that would suggest he was ‘the best in the world’.

Teamsports are always difficult to compare to individuals. But Murray is clearly far in excess of everyone else by success relative to opportunity metrics. Tennis is a game where British players have suffered huge disadvantages for decades.

The fact his success is unparalleled in 80 years is sort of the perfect metric to show that.

[Hoboh]

Disadvantages? Starter for 10, worked down a pit like Nat? Moved to Barcelona in his teens to improve his tennis? Give your fcuking head a shake.

Disadvantages have to be weighed relative to his peers. Not relative to a footballer from the 1950’s.

He wasn’t in a tennis academy from the age of 11/12 like most of his peers or a product of the Swiss tennis federation. He lived in Scotland - hardly a hotbed of tennis success and the worst possible conditions.

He survived the worst school massacre in British history and the mental scars from that alone must be massive.

He was born with significant undiagnosed knee injury where his kneecaps didn’t fuse together. The result of which has caused many of his injury issues in his career and meant he was always disadvantaged in terms of reaching full fitness. He played in pain without it being known why till he was 16.

He rose to win grand slams and number one in a sport you have to go back to pre World War Two to find the last Brit to do so. Clearly against massive structural disadvantages.

He also won in an era of the greatest players ever to play the game. And not just one. Three of the buggers. World number one, double Olympic gold singles medalist (only one in the history of the sport), 3 grand slams. He made the top of a sport against pretty much all odds.

So there will be zero head wobbling here.

If you can't compare across the ages, then you can't find the greatest of all time, so it sort of doesn't matter. He'd probably make my top 50.

You compare to their situations relative to their sport. I also don’t remember Nat ever winning a trophy that would suggest he was ‘the best in the world’.

Teamsports are always difficult to compare to individuals. But Murray is clearly far in excess of everyone else by success relative to opportunity metrics. Tennis is a game where British players have suffered huge disadvantages for decades.

The fact his success is unparalleled in 80 years is sort of the perfect metric to show that.

Don't mean you have to like him though, does it?

[TANGODANCER]

You compare to their situations relative to their sport. I also don’t remember Nat ever winning a trophy that would suggest he was ‘the best in the world’.

Is that our Nat the pit-lad you speak of? Nat who won 33 England caps, scored 30 goals for his country and was one of the highest goals-per-game ratios of any England player.
? Tha Nat, who never left Bolon Wanderers despite his fame and was a Wanderer till the day he died. You compare that with fifteen love and cucumber sandwiches? Away man.

Sorry, this is in the wrong thread

[BWFC_Insane]

You compare to their situations relative to their sport. I also don’t remember Nat ever winning a trophy that would suggest he was ‘the best in the world’.

Is that our Nat the pit-lad you speak of? Nat who won 33 England caps, scored 30 goals for his country and was one of the highest goals-per-game ratios of any England player.
? Tha Nat, who never left Bolon Wanderers despite his fame and was a Wanderer till the day he died. You compare that with fifteen love and cucumber sandwiches? Away man.

Sorry, this is in the wrong thread

It’s a different conversation though. He was absolutely brilliant in every way. Was he ‘best in the world’ I don’t really know but probably not. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t entirely special.

[Montreal Wanderer]

You compare to their situations relative to their sport. I also don’t remember Nat ever winning a trophy that would suggest he was ‘the best in the world’.

Is that our Nat the pit-lad you speak of? Nat who won 33 England caps, scored 30 goals for his country and was one of the highest goals-per-game ratios of any England player.
? Tha Nat, who never left Bolon Wanderers despite his fame and was a Wanderer till the day he died. You compare that with fifteen love and cucumber sandwiches? Away man.

Sorry, this is in the wrong thread

It’s a different conversation though. He was absolutely brilliant in every way. Was he ‘best in the world’ I don’t really know but probably not. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t entirely special.

Murray was the best in the world for a brief period of his career. So was Rory whose achievements were perhaps more impressive. There is no sensible way to measure "best in the world" in a team sport. For example, Footballer of the Year is (a) highly subjective, (b) dependent on teammates and (c) subject to considerable disagreement. But Nat was the best in the world one afternoon in Vienna as far as I'm concerned.

[BWFC_Insane]

You compare to their situations relative to their sport. I also don’t remember Nat ever winning a trophy that would suggest he was ‘the best in the world’.

Is that our Nat the pit-lad you speak of? Nat who won 33 England caps, scored 30 goals for his country and was one of the highest goals-per-game ratios of any England player.
? Tha Nat, who never left Bolon Wanderers despite his fame and was a Wanderer till the day he died. You compare that with fifteen love and cucumber sandwiches? Away man.

Sorry, this is in the wrong thread

It’s a different conversation though. He was absolutely brilliant in every way. Was he ‘best in the world’ I don’t really know but probably not. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t entirely special.

Murray was the best in the world for a brief period of his career. So was Rory whose achievements were perhaps more impressive. There is no sensible way to measure "best in the world" in a team sport. For example, Footballer of the Year is (a) highly subjective, (b) dependent on teammates and (c) subject to considerable disagreement. But Nat was the best in the world one afternoon in Vienna as far as I'm concerned.

The difference for me is Murray was world number one and the only British male to be so in the open era. Indeed the only one this side of WW2. That achievement plus being the only male tennis player to have two Olympic gold singles eclipses Mcilroy though Mcilroy still has plenty of career left.

As for footballers and the like I agree it’s hard to determine the ‘best in the world’. But I’d struggle to seriously suggest in a non partisan way it was Nat in an era Pele was playing for example….

[Montreal Wanderer]

You compare to their situations relative to their sport. I also don’t remember Nat ever winning a trophy that would suggest he was ‘the best in the world’.

Is that our Nat the pit-lad you speak of? Nat who won 33 England caps, scored 30 goals for his country and was one of the highest goals-per-game ratios of any England player.
? Tha Nat, who never left Bolon Wanderers despite his fame and was a Wanderer till the day he died. You compare that with fifteen love and cucumber sandwiches? Away man.

Sorry, this is in the wrong thread

It’s a different conversation though. He was absolutely brilliant in every way. Was he ‘best in the world’ I don’t really know but probably not. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t entirely special.

Murray was the best in the world for a brief period of his career. So was Rory whose achievements were perhaps more impressive. There is no sensible way to measure "best in the world" in a team sport. For example, Footballer of the Year is (a) highly subjective, (b) dependent on teammates and (c) subject to considerable disagreement. But Nat was the best in the world one afternoon in Vienna as far as I'm concerned.

The difference for me is Murray was world number one and the only British male to be so in the open era. Indeed the only one this side of WW2. That achievement plus being the only male tennis player to have two Olympic gold singles eclipses Mcilroy though Mcilroy still has plenty of career left.

As for footballers and the like I agree it’s hard to determine the ‘best in the world’. But I’d struggle to seriously suggest in a non partisan way it was Nat in an era Pele was playing for example….

Two points, Insano.
1. Lofthouse had the best international goal per game ratio of any English player from 1950-1958. This started before Pele was born and ended just before Pele burst on the scene in the 1958 WC. So they were not exactly contemporaries.
2. I never suggested Nat was the greatest of all time. I wasn't talking about a career. I said he was the best in the world for one brief moment in time in 1952. Basically I was making a point of whether we judge people like Murray on a career or the point he won Wimbledon and was rated the best in the World.

[BWFC_Insane]

You compare to their situations relative to their sport. I also don’t remember Nat ever winning a trophy that would suggest he was ‘the best in the world’.

Is that our Nat the pit-lad you speak of? Nat who won 33 England caps, scored 30 goals for his country and was one of the highest goals-per-game ratios of any England player.
? Tha Nat, who never left Bolon Wanderers despite his fame and was a Wanderer till the day he died. You compare that with fifteen love and cucumber sandwiches? Away man.

Sorry, this is in the wrong thread

It’s a different conversation though. He was absolutely brilliant in every way. Was he ‘best in the world’ I don’t really know but probably not. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t entirely special.

Murray was the best in the world for a brief period of his career. So was Rory whose achievements were perhaps more impressive. There is no sensible way to measure "best in the world" in a team sport. For example, Footballer of the Year is (a) highly subjective, (b) dependent on teammates and (c) subject to considerable disagreement. But Nat was the best in the world one afternoon in Vienna as far as I'm concerned.

The difference for me is Murray was world number one and the only British male to be so in the open era. Indeed the only one this side of WW2. That achievement plus being the only male tennis player to have two Olympic gold singles eclipses Mcilroy though Mcilroy still has plenty of career left.

As for footballers and the like I agree it’s hard to determine the ‘best in the world’. But I’d struggle to seriously suggest in a non partisan way it was Nat in an era Pele was playing for example….

Two points, Insano.
1. Lofthouse had the best international goal per game ratio of any English player from 1950-1958. This started before Pele was born and ended just before Pele burst on the scene in the 1958 WC. So they were not exactly contemporaries.
2. I never suggested Nat was the greatest of all time. I wasn't talking about a career. I said he was the best in the world for one brief moment in time in 1952. Basically I was making a point of whether we judge people like Murray on a career or the point he won Wimbledon and was rated the best in the World.

Yeah this is a fascinating conversation.

I think in football it’s so hard to compare to other sports where there are formal ranking systems because obviously it’s a team game, there is no player ranking and the best player is very subjective…they best player may indeed play in one of the ‘not best’ sides.

I still somewhat struggle with the notion that Lofthouse was genuinely the best player in the world at that moment (would we not have fans of every major club around the world claiming the same for one of their own?) but I mean I guess it’s possible. We are talking era of Puskas, Rahn, Finney etc…and more latterly as you note Pele…

It’s much more difficult to assess. I also think it’s harder to really assess in the 50’s than football now. We are so exposed to every player round the world and their stats and performances it’s probably easier to claim who is best now but even then I doubt there is complete agreement…

[Montreal Wanderer]

You compare to their situations relative to their sport. I also don’t remember Nat ever winning a trophy that would suggest he was ‘the best in the world’.

Is that our Nat the pit-lad you speak of? Nat who won 33 England caps, scored 30 goals for his country and was one of the highest goals-per-game ratios of any England player.
? Tha Nat, who never left Bolon Wanderers despite his fame and was a Wanderer till the day he died. You compare that with fifteen love and cucumber sandwiches? Away man.

Sorry, this is in the wrong thread

It’s a different conversation though. He was absolutely brilliant in every way. Was he ‘best in the world’ I don’t really know but probably not. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t entirely special.

Murray was the best in the world for a brief period of his career. So was Rory whose achievements were perhaps more impressive. There is no sensible way to measure "best in the world" in a team sport. For example, Footballer of the Year is (a) highly subjective, (b) dependent on teammates and (c) subject to considerable disagreement. But Nat was the best in the world one afternoon in Vienna as far as I'm concerned.

The difference for me is Murray was world number one and the only British male to be so in the open era. Indeed the only one this side of WW2. That achievement plus being the only male tennis player to have two Olympic gold singles eclipses Mcilroy though Mcilroy still has plenty of career left.

As for footballers and the like I agree it’s hard to determine the ‘best in the world’. But I’d struggle to seriously suggest in a non partisan way it was Nat in an era Pele was playing for example….

Two points, Insano.
1. Lofthouse had the best international goal per game ratio of any English player from 1950-1958. This started before Pele was born and ended just before Pele burst on the scene in the 1958 WC. So they were not exactly contemporaries.
2. I never suggested Nat was the greatest of all time. I wasn't talking about a career. I said he was the best in the world for one brief moment in time in 1952. Basically I was making a point of whether we judge people like Murray on a career or the point he won Wimbledon and was rated the best in the World.

Yeah this is a fascinating conversation.

I think in football it’s so hard to compare to other sports where there are formal ranking systems because obviously it’s a team game, there is no player ranking and the best player is very subjective…they best player may indeed play in one of the ‘not best’ sides.

I still somewhat struggle with the notion that Lofthouse was genuinely the best player in the world at that moment (would we not have fans of every major club around the world claiming the same for one of their own?) but I mean I guess it’s possible. We are talking era of Puskas, Rahn, Finney etc…and more latterly as you note Pele…

It’s much more difficult to assess. I also think it’s harder to really assess in the 50’s than football now. We are so exposed to every player round the world and their stats and performances it’s probably easier to claim who is best now but even then I doubt there is complete agreement…

The moment in time I was referring to was May 25, 1952 between 5.00 pm and 7.00 BST. Puskas and di Stefano were not playing then - probably eating tapas. Tom Finney was there but they didn't call him the Lion of Vienna. Nat scored twoce and had an asist on the third. He returned to score the winner after he had been taken off unconcscious. For that moment in time he was the greatest.