Which opinions have you come around on?

[Jelenafan]

I’ve come around that mental strength trumps all, it is far superior to “aesthetics” every single time. You can work hard, condition & train, have oodles of natural talent, etc and that are all factors, but that In crunch time it’s mental.

As far as tennis style, my high school coach used to say “ I don’t care how you hit your backhand, just get it over the damn net.”

There are different ways to hit a backhand, I concede what is “pleasing” to me visually is so subjective.

Used to hate back in the day in the NBA Rick Barry’s underhand free throw stance. It was highly effective ( Barry had over 90%) Rick bristled at first when his dad taught him that saying it was a “sissy” way but his dad said if it works, it works.

Sports is competition, it’s not a painting.

 

[britbox]

There is an interesting trade off between perceived skill/beauty/perception and pure results. Rather like a tug of war between Broken's interpretation of Messi and Jelenafans' "end justifies the means".

Ideally you have both for completeness but at the end of the day it is a results based business.

I remember the first football World cup I really watched closely and got invested in as a kid (I vaguely remember Argentina 78) but this was Spain 82 where I saw the most beautiful football played by the Brazil team. Just pure art form... It seemed so effortless, like there were many gears this team could go through... Socrates, Falcao, Junior... And the only and only Zico (who at the time was said to be the best in the world)...

Except this team didn't win the World Cup and Zico barely gets a mention in Soccer GOAT conversations nearly 45 years later. So, yes results matter - especially down the track when memories start to wane. Sometimes they'll be the only thing that matters when future generations discuss these matters without the benefit of first hand memory.

 

[britbox]

I’ve come around that mental strength trumps all, it is far superior to “aesthetics” every single time. You can work hard, condition & train, have oodles of natural talent, etc and that are all factors, but that In crunch time it’s mental.

As far as tennis style, my high school coach used to say “ I don’t care how you hit your backhand, just get it over the damn net.”

There are different ways to hit a backhand, I concede what is “pleasing” to me visually is so subjective.

Used to hate back in the day in the NBA Rick Barry’s underhand free throw stance. It was highly effective ( Barry had over 90%) Rick bristled at first when his dad taught him that saying it was a “sissy” way but his dad said if it works, it works.

Sports is competition, it’s not a painting.

So true. Gasquet's backhand was beautiful to me - even down to the seemingly unique audio pop resonance when he hit the ball. But the best or most effective? Hell, no.

 

[Murat B.]

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth"
Mike Tyson
"Plans go to hell as soon as the first shot is fired"
Jack Reacher
"Nobody knows anything"
William Goldman

Guess what opinion of mine has changed in the last 5 years or so....

 

[Kieran]

I

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth"
Mike Tyson
"Plans go to hell as soon as the first shot is fired"
Jack Reacher
"Nobody knows anything"
William Goldman

Guess what opinion of mine has changed in the last 5 years or so....

I truly can’t imagine, they’re all good!

 

[Kieran]

I remember the first football World cup I really watched closely and got invested in as a kid (I vaguely remember Argentina 78) but this was Spain 82 where I saw the most beautiful football played by the Brazil team. Just pure art form... It seemed so effortless, like there were many gears this team could go through... Socrates, Falcao, Junior... And the only and only Zico (who at the time was said to be the best in the world)...

Except this team didn't win the World Cup…

Oh brother, I STILL haven’t recovered. That’s one of the moments of so many lives that has affected us permanently. Even Johan Cruyff said it shook his faith. They were music on the pitch, and not in the silly arrogant way Brazil were in the last World Cup, actually dancing with their manager in the sidelines during a round Robin match.

1982 Brazil made the difficult task of cutting through international sides look like it was training ground stuff. They were incredible. Gentile ripped Zico’s jersey in the penalty area. No foul.

That summed up the direction of football for the next decade…

 

[Moxie]

I love this thread so much! Mostly because @brokenshoelace is back, and reminding us of the old days, including references to some of our more extreme posters, like Cali, and MikeOne. And reminding us that the Fedal Wars began with the Sampras v Federer wars, which they did. All worth bringing back, especially as the OP is about what have we learned?

I fear I may have learned nothing. Actually, I will quote some great posts above , but I am in the camp that A) Yes, injuries mean something, and players do play through. Per Broken, the old saw, "If you're playing, you're not hurt," is a ridiculous trope, and I agree with this. Most players hurt a lot, at any given moment. It's a question of how much, and how significantly. Anyone who has done sport at any serious level, (or dance) knows that you live with pain. It's a question of which ones matter.

I'm in agreement with @Jelenafan about aesthetics, though. I don't care how pretty it is. It's sports. Not ballet. You have to win.

I think there is no one GOAT of this era. If you want it to be Djokovic, then you can have it, but it's impossible, if you ask me, to really separate the Big 3. And Laver, no. GOATS only work for an era, not forever.

What have I changed my opinion on? Well, I've softened about Roger, over the years. And I'm sure I'd be willing to give some ground on Djokovic if that rat bastard would ever retire.

 

[britbox]

Despite what I said about Results, It's also interesting how people who weren't really in the mainstream of a GOAT debate kind of re-appear when certain stats are elevated. I don't follow Basketball at all now, but I did once upon a time and Magic Johnson was the main man at the Lakers. He was a possible GOAT or at least top 3 and talked in the same breath as Jordan... because the generation who watched him, realised how much better he made players around him and was like a ringmaster on court. If Johnson himself was stats-oriented he could have much better totals IMO - but at what expense to the team?

Yet since he retired, he seems to have been surpassed by Kareem who retired before him! and this is largely a scoring stats-based re-analysis. Kareem was great but he wasn't Magic. You could say Magic, Bird, Jordan especially completely elevated the sport.

 

[Moxie]

Another one, and I promise you I haven't been hacked/kidnapped...

Cali was right in the spirit of his takes re: talent. Obviously, he's borderline clinically insane and went overboard. The mental gymnastics to justify every time his opinions were proven wrong were silly and emotional.

But he was right about one thing:

There absolutely is merit to aesthetics as an indicator of talent, and yes, skill. All things are not equal and watching sports strictly from a results oriented perspective is a joyless approach that absolutely fails to capture the essence of why we watch any sport, much less tennis. The way you do things matter. The way you play matters. Obviously, it has to be backed up by results to a large extent. So no, sorry, Nalbandian is not the most talented player of all time.

But when it comes to the real elite, yes, Roger Federer winning the way he was in his prime absolutely makes him the greatest to ever touch a tennis racket. The same way Messi is the greatest football player of all time because of how he did what he did, not just the numbers and accolades. Remember when this was a debate around here just cause he hadn't won a world cup? Utterly ridiculous, and really highlights how flawed the pure results driven approach is. Messi finally won the World Cup in 2022, when he was way past his prime. Was he a better player in 2022 than he was in 2010 or 2014?

Between 2004 and 2007, Federer played tennis in a way nobody has ever played until then, or since.

I think I know where you're coming from, but let's confirm. If you think Cali was in any way right that aesthetics matter, then we're talking about how much pleasure we, the spectators, get from the performance, am I right? I mean, Cali hated Nadal simply because, personally, he found his style ugly. And he believed that his opinion was the only one that mattered. (Actually, he believed that his opinion was just truth, so much was his dillusion.) However, those of us who loved Nadal, yourself included, found his tennis thrilling. Much in the way that Alcaraz's is...impossible shots that catch your breath.

A lot of folks around here love the beauty of the one-hander. Fine, but it's not the only way. And, as britbox points out, just because Gasquet's was pretty, it didn't win him a lot of big prizes.

Yes, Roger had a lot of shots, and they could be very pleasing. And he played with an effortless-seeming style. Does that make it better? Crowd-pleasing, yes, but so was Rafa's and so is Alcaraz's. Not so much Sinner's, let's be honest. Personally, I think Novak's is more back-board than crowd-pleasing, but he's a matter of taste, too. Gael Monfils is a great crowd pleaser and so was Nick Kyrgios, in his way. So what is the value of "aesthetics," and how do you really rate it in terms of value, overall?

If you're saying that aesthetics are an indicator of talent, what about Sinner? He has 4 Majors and counting, and, let's face it, his tennis isn't what anyone would call "pretty." Yet, clearly, he's talented in many ways. (Actually "talent" is a term that Cali used very narrowly.) I would say that Sinner has what @Jelenafan is prizing, and that's a strong mentality, and I would co-sign mental strength.

 

[DarthFed]

I’d say the main thing is that I believe dominance is the biggest factor when we talk about greatness. If we are talking tennis I do think Djokovic checks the boxes when all is said and done despite Roger being more dominant at his peak. There is just too much difference in their resume to go with the fact Roger struggled to win much of anything for most of his 30’s. The dominance of MJ in the NBA makes him the GOAT by far, and he kind of has dang near everything else in his favor aside from accumulated stats. I don’t want to dismiss the longevity of LeBron and Kareem as that’s a big part of their greatness, but MJ clears them even with having a way shorter career.

And the second thing is that nostalgia in sports is OK as long as you aren’t delusional. I kind of hated the idea of it until recently but even before Roger aged out I did not care much for tennis…no it isn’t just about the silent bans and all around lack of trust I have in the ATP, which has only been reinforced with the Sinner clownery. But the fact that the surfaces just play more and more similar makes tennis more of a track meet as time has gone on. Give me tennis before late 2000’s every day even though on average the players are naturally worse. All the big tournaments you actually had to seriously adapt to the conditions.

I also hate the NBA right now, I think the product is absolute trash and I cringe when I watch bits and pieces. Now a big part of that ironically is that the players are too fricking good and the season is so long that they barely try on defense and the rules barely allow them to be physical as is. With that said, while I love 90’s and even watching old games from 80’s and 70’s, I have no doubt that the teams today would absolutely kill the best teams from those eras. They would have zero clue what to do with big guys that will knock down a high % of open 3’s for starters. But that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the game back then, I just don’t have to be delusional and think the players are actually better.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There is an interesting trade off between perceived skill/beauty/perception and pure results. Rather like a tug of war between Broken's interpretation of Messi and Jelenafans' "end justifies the means".

Ideally you have both for completeness but at the end of the day it is a results based business.

I remember the first football World cup I really watched closely and got invested in as a kid (I vaguely remember Argentina 78) but this was Spain 82 where I saw the most beautiful football played by the Brazil team. Just pure art form... It seemed so effortless, like there were many gears this team could go through... Socrates, Falcao, Junior... And the only and only Zico (who at the time was said to be the best in the world)...

Except this team didn't win the World Cup and Zico barely gets a mention in Soccer GOAT conversations nearly 45 years later. So, yes results matter - especially down the track when memories start to wane. Sometimes they'll be the only thing that matters when future generations discuss these matters without the benefit of first hand memory.

There needs to be a balance in perception between results and aesthetics. I think my initial post didn't make that clear. When I'm talking about the importance of aesthetics when assessing or comparing athletes, one key factor should be taken into account:

They can only come into play between athletes with similar resumes. Hence sneering at the Nalbandian nonsense. But when it comes to Federer vs. Djokovic/Nadal, Messi vs. Ronaldo, Jordan vs. LeBron, ie. people who have achieved so much and have comparable resumes one way or another, then abilities come into play. And while some would say a tap-in and a solo goal following a mazy dribble from the middle of the pitch both count the same, it completely fails to capture degree of difficulty. In that regard, I don't use "aesthetics" in the simplistic way (ie. eye-pleasing for the audience), but rather, an indicator of abilities, and more importantly, how those abilities actually translate to results.

Let's stick with Messi vs. Ronaldo for a second. Both have very similar goalscoring records but the quality of goals are also reflective of who's a better player. To simplify it (and I realize this is overly simplistic), while you don't score nearly a thousand goals by mistake, and Ronaldo was way more than just a goalscorer earlier in his career, when the other guy is able to create his own goals far better than you, that also means he can unlock the game more than you, which means he's also relying on teammates less than you. Again this is very simplistic and I'm happy to discuss it with more details in subsequent posts but I'm trying to keep this relatively brief.

In individual sports this is obviously a little trickier, but shot-making isn't simply something that draws ohs and ahs from the audience, it is something that directly affects a tennis match. It has to be backed up by so many things, but when we're discussing GOAT candidates, they're all physically fit, mentally tough, etc...to varying extents. The reason, IMO, Roger's 2004-2007 peak is unparalleled is that his shot-making made him so much better than anyone else on a level that we hadn't seen before or since. Of course there are other factors that come into play too.

Basically I look at aesthetics as an extension of abilities, in these cases.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Despite what I said about Results, It's also interesting how people who weren't really in the mainstream of a GOAT debate kind of re-appear when certain stats are elevated. I don't follow Basketball at all now, but I did once upon a time and Magic Johnson was the main man at the Lakers. He was a possible GOAT or at least top 3 and talked in the same breath as Jordan... because the generation who watched him, realised how much better he made players around him and was like a ringmaster on court. If Johnson himself was stats-oriented he could have much better totals IMO - but at what expense to the team?

Yet since he retired, he seems to have been surpassed by Kareem who retired before him! and this is largely a scoring stats-based re-analysis. Kareem was great but he wasn't Magic. You could say Magic, Bird, Jordan especially completely elevated the sport.

I would say more so than any other sport, the GOAT debate in basketball is heavily influenced by personal agendas, and that is because a large portion of the American media (who largely shapes the debate) is literally on the payroll of certain players. This is not a conspiracy theory. Many in the media are literally on Klutch's payroll (basically LeBron James' agency). This is not to diminish LeBron, who is at worst, the second best player in history, but just to highlight why the debate is often ridiculous. Conversely, many in the media actively loathe him, and elevate Jordan partially because of that. Emotions are always part of the GOAT debate but in the NBA, it's more extreme. Hence some of the inconsistencies you noted. For instance, in the Kareem example, he was the all-time leading scorer before LeBron broke his record a couple of seasons ago. By elevating Kareem, you're also elevating LeBron. It's all a bit silly. I would say Magic is still a consensus top 5 player ever, but perhaps less consensus than he would have been a decade ago.

It also doesn't help that basketball is one of the most sheer numbers stats oriented sports in the world so the arguments can get a little outrageous, especially when ignoring the general inflation in stats, how differently the game is played now, how much more high scoring the games are, more offense oriented, etc...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I’d say the main thing is that I believe dominance is the biggest factor when we talk about greatness. If we are talking tennis I do think Djokovic checks the boxes when all is said and done despite Roger being more dominant at his peak. There is just too much difference in their resume to go with the fact Roger struggled to win much of anything for most of his 30’s. The dominance of MJ in the NBA makes him the GOAT by far, and he kind of has dang near everything else in his favor aside from accumulated stats. I don’t want to dismiss the longevity of LeBron and Kareem as that’s a big part of their greatness, but MJ clears them even with having a way shorter career.

And the second thing is that nostalgia in sports is OK as long as you aren’t delusional. I kind of hated the idea of it until recently but even before Roger aged out I did not care much for tennis…no it isn’t just about the silent bans and all around lack of trust I have in the ATP, which has only been reinforced with the Sinner clownery. But the fact that the surfaces just play more and more similar makes tennis more of a track meet as time has gone on. Give me tennis before late 2000’s every day even though on average the players are naturally worse. All the big tournaments you actually had to seriously adapt to the conditions.

I also hate the NBA right now, I think the product is absolute trash and I cringe when I watch bits and pieces. Now a big part of that ironically is that the players are too fricking good and the season is so long that they barely try on defense and the rules barely allow them to be physical as is. With that said, while I love 90’s and even watching old games from 80’s and 70’s, I have no doubt that the teams today would absolutely kill the best teams from those eras. They would have zero clue what to do with big guys that will knock down a high % of open 3’s for starters. But that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the game back then, I just don’t have to be delusional and think the players are actually better.

I agree with a lot of this, and I was meaning to post something similar when discussing cross-era comparisons.

Because the game (in any sport really) evolves so much, it's really impossible to compare, which leaves us with the one semi-objective metric: How good were you against your peers (of which dominance, as you mentioned, is a major part). How did Jordan get to be so good? His game was unlike anyone who preceded him. Maybe some Dr. J in terms of high flying action, maybe some Eljin Baylor in terms of scoring (?), but really his game looked like unlike anything we'd seen before from the moment he set foot in the league, and more importantly, unlike any of his contemporaries. There literally was no one close to his level. So how did he get to be so good? That's not even getting into the amount of winning he did.

I also do agree with you that part of the issue with the NBA right now, ironically, is that the players on average are ridiculously good. I'm an OKC fan as you might recall, so I won't sit here and claim I hate the product, they're the champs after all. But I was watching them against Denver the other day and the 3 point fest was honestly a little tedious. Everyone was hitting everything, and these aren't even two of the best three point shooting teams in the league. Any role player can put even some of the best defenders on skates, create for themselves, score, etc... they're just way too good. Centers have guard like abilities. It's exhilarating at times, but also a little too overpowered if that makes sense.

Where I disagree with you is the physicality thing. Yeah, you can't bludgeon people in the paint the way you did in the 80's, but the game is played at such a pace now, that defenses have to be insanely locked in, quick, physical, strong, etc... It's a different kind of physicality. The amount of running guys have to do is insane. In that regard, playoff basketball is still super fun to watch. They're a lot less free flowing than the -- insanely long -- regular season, and the physicality in some ways, I would argue is more demanding than ever, just in a different way.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I’ve come around that mental strength trumps all, it is far superior to “aesthetics” every single time. You can work hard, condition & train, have oodles of natural talent, etc and that are all factors, but that In crunch time it’s mental.

As far as tennis style, my high school coach used to say “ I don’t care how you hit your backhand, just get it over the damn net.”

There are different ways to hit a backhand, I concede what is “pleasing” to me visually is so subjective.

Used to hate back in the day in the NBA Rick Barry’s underhand free throw stance. It was highly effective ( Barry had over 90%) Rick bristled at first when his dad taught him that saying it was a “sissy” way but his dad said if it works, it works.

Sports is competition, it’s not a painting.

A truly amazing stat I saw:

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have won between 52 and 54% of their career points. With the amount of winning they did, this feels way too low at first glance. But it highlights how unique tennis is a sport, and how important the mental side of things is, where the difference is often a few key points.

It also highlights how much of tennis discourse is influenced by results, to a fault IMO. A player could win a tight 4 setter with 2 tie breaks, and we'll talk about strategy in absolute terms, when in reality 3-4 points swung the match in their favor. We'll focus on what the loser didn't do, what the winner did, etc... And while all of that does matter, it still boiled down to 4 points. So how bad was the loser's strategy really?

 

[britbox]

There needs to be a balance in perception between results and aesthetics. I think my initial post didn't make that clear. When I'm talking about the importance of aesthetics when assessing or comparing athletes, one key factor should be taken into account:

They can only come into play between athletes with similar resumes. Hence sneering at the Nalbandian nonsense. But when it comes to Federer vs. Djokovic/Nadal, Messi vs. Ronaldo, Jordan vs. LeBron, ie. people who have achieved so much and have comparable resumes one way or another, then abilities come into play. And while some would say a tap-in and a solo goal following a mazy dribble from the middle of the pitch both count the same, it completely fails to capture degree of difficulty. In that regard, I don't use "aesthetics" in the simplistic way (ie. eye-pleasing for the audience), but rather, an indicator of abilities, and more importantly, how those abilities actually translate to results.

Let's stick with Messi vs. Ronaldo for a second. Both have very similar goalscoring records but the quality of goals are also reflective of who's a better player. To simplify it (and I realize this is overly simplistic), while you don't score nearly a thousand goals by mistake, and Ronaldo was way more than just a goalscorer earlier in his career, when the other guy is able to create his own goals far better than you, that also means he can unlock the game more than you, which means he's also relying on teammates less than you. Again this is very simplistic and I'm happy to discuss it with more details in subsequent posts but I'm trying to keep this relatively brief.

In individual sports this is obviously a little trickier, but shot-making isn't simply something that draws ohs and ahs from the audience, it is something that directly affects a tennis match. It has to be backed up by so many things, but when we're discussing GOAT candidates, they're all physically fit, mentally tough, etc...to varying extents. The reason, IMO, Roger's 2004-2007 peak is unparalleled is that his shot-making made him so much better than anyone else on a level that we hadn't seen before or since. Of course there are other factors that come into play too.

Basically I look at aesthetics as an extension of abilities, in these cases.

I was thinking more of the Messi/World Cup commentary when writing the post. Now, I agree in theory what you say about it. In the here and now... but trust me in a generation time - think maybe 15-20 years, and definitely 30-40 years time - not winning it will have mattered because the actual memories will have waned and many people will never have seen him play. We do have the video but it's still not quite the same as living it.

Loosely on the same subject but focusing on the different era dimension, I was listening to a podcast today with a bunch of boxers (Smith boxing brothers from Liverpool) and Robbie Fowler (former Liverpool striker) talking about it. All to a man were adamant that greats from previous eras would live in the modern era... because they would adapt. i.e. Change habits, change training, change nutrition, change kit.... because the best are wired to succeed and they do what is needed to be done.

 

[DarthFed]

I agree with a of this, and I was meaning to post something similar when discussing cross-era comparisons.

Because the game (in any sport really) evolves so much, it's really impossible to compare, which leaves us with the one semi-objective metric: How good were you against your peers (of which dominance, as you mentioned, is a major part). How did Jordan get to be so good? His game was unlike anyone who preceded him. Maybe some Dr. J in terms of high flying action, maybe some Eljin Baylor in terms of scoring (?), but really his game looked like unlike anything we'd seen before from the moment he set foot in the league, and more importantly, unlike any of his contemporaries. There literally was no one close to his level. So how did he get to be so good? That's not even getting into the amount of winning he did.

I also do agree with you that part of the issue with the NBA right now, ironically, is that the players on average are ridiculously good. I'm an OKC fan as you might recall, so I won't sit here and claim I hate the product, they're the champs after all. But I was watching them against Denver the other day and the 3 point fest was honestly a little tedious. Everyone was hitting everything, and these aren't even two of the best three point shooting teams in the league. Any role player can put even some of the best defenders on skates, create for themselves, score, etc... they're just way too good. Centers have guard like abilities. It's exhilarating at times, but also a little too overpowered if that makes sense.

Where I disagree with you is the physicality thing. Yeah, you can't bludgeon people in the paint the way you did in the 80's, but the game is played at such a pace now, that defenses have to be insanely locked in, quick, physical, strong, etc... It's a different kind of physicality. The amount of running guys have to do is insane. In that regard, playoff basketball is still super fun to watch. They're a lot less free flowing than the -- insanely long -- regular season, and the physicality in some ways, I would argue is more demanding than ever, just in a different way.

Not to go more into a pure NBA discussion but yeah I definitely remember you being an OKC fan and it’s good times for you. I like the team too and was glad to see them win and wouldn’t mind them repeating this year either compared to some other options! But even the playoffs now are quite a bit different and you still have the same problems. I know Haliburton getting hurt early in game 7 of the finals affected things but that was a total snooze fest, teams combined for nearly 70 three pointers and the game lacked intensity. Also, regarding physicality I am not referring to the Bad Boy Piston days but even physicality of the 90’s - 00’s is way different than today. Granted some of that is the fact it’s a glorified 3 point contest and the refs are quick to call just about anything these days. I wish they’d bring back handchecking as that could potentially help a lot.

Anyways, the differences in sports today are obviously a big part of this and the GOAT topic and there probably could be a separate thread as to which sports/games we prefer now vs the past. It’s limited for me but that may be due to the fact I’m a grumpy aging dude instead of a kid, so inherently I probably am more likely to enjoy sports in the past compared to today

 

[El Dude]

Despite what I said about Results, It's also interesting how people who weren't really in the mainstream of a GOAT debate kind of re-appear when certain stats are elevated. I don't follow Basketball at all now, but I did once upon a time and Magic Johnson was the main man at the Lakers. He was a possible GOAT or at least top 3 and talked in the same breath as Jordan... because the generation who watched him, realised how much better he made players around him and was like a ringmaster on court. If Johnson himself was stats-oriented he could have much better totals IMO - but at what expense to the team?

Yet since he retired, he seems to have been surpassed by Kareem who retired before him! and this is largely a scoring stats-based re-analysis. Kareem was great but he wasn't Magic. You could say Magic, Bird, Jordan especially completely elevated the sport.

Part of it is longevity, but I I think the main problem there is that Kareem actually was at his very best in the 70s, when he won six MVPs in nine years (!). Most of us remember the older version from the mid-to-late 80s, when he was still very good but Magic was better. Meaning, Kareem won six MVPs before Magic even debuted (in 1980). Magic won three MVPs in the late 80s, when Kareem was the old guy with the sky-hook, but a far cry from the player he was in the 70s.

Basketball is also a team sport, and a lot of what made Magic great was how he made the whole team better. I'm not a big basketball fan, but I'm pretty sure that there isn't a goo stat for that.

 

[Jelenafan]

Part of it is longevity, but I I think the main problem there is that Kareem actually was at his very best in the 70s, when he won six MVPs in nine years (!). Most of us remember the older version from the mid-to-late 80s, when he was still very good but Magic was better. Meaning, Kareem won six MVPs before Magic even debuted (in 1980). Magic won three MVPs in the late 80s, when Kareem was the old guy with the sky-hook, but a far cry from the player he was in the 70s.

Basketball is also a team sport, and a lot of what made Magic great was how he made the whole team better. I'm not a big basketball fan, but I'm pretty sure that there isn't a goo stat for that.

The Warriors Stephen Curry is the same type of player with those intangibles of complementing his teammates. Kevin Durant would have had a boatload of championships by now in if he had remained with the Dubs.

 

[mrzz]

Would you FUCKING STOP mentioning Brazil's 82 team? I was 9 years old and literally tried to murder my father, who is Italian.

 

[atttomole]

Would you FUCKING STOP mentioning Brazil's 82 team? I was 9 years old and literally tried to murder my father, who is Italian.

They were so good but it looked like they lacked a finisher. From the videos I saw, after Pele, Brazil never had an excellent finisher until Romario. And not long after, Ronaldo came.