Who is the greatest?

The tag of the greatest player is one of the most interesting debates that don the sporting world. In most cases, it boils down to the statistical supremacy but in many of these debates, there are multidimensional arguments which in most gets never get resolved. Also the ifs and buts which should ideally not be taken into account, somehow come into the picture. It is very puzzling to find analysts churn out their minds to say who the greatest ever is. But have we ever thought why a categorical use of the superlative degree in this particular field is so difficult ? Let us try to explore with refelections from some of the greatest names in sport.
Statistically speaking, there can hardly ever be a cricketer who can out-average the great Don .So if we go on to decide who the greatest ever test cricketer is , apparently there should be no competition at all. But if the topic becomes a research paper for cricket purists, the outcome would not seem so obvious in favour of Australia's greatest ever sportsman. The don scored runs at a time when cricket was technically a "gentleman's game", played amongst the elitist of commonwealth countries with the palyer having ony test cricket to contend with. Hence the breating space was much more. Contrariwise, if we take a look at some of his modern day competitors as to where they stand, we find that there can be a twist in this tale.With the advent of one day cricket , players nowadays are playing too much cricket which takes a toll on their bodies. Morever in an age of constant media- glare, every iota of a failure assumes herculean proprtions. Hence the mental pressure which the players have to cope up with was actually not heard of in the earlier days. Every time a certain Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar has walked out to bat , he single handedly has been carrying the hopes of a billion countrymen on his shoulders.This is his 20th year in International cricket with nearly 150 tests and 425 onedayers.And to write about his achievements , an entire book would be not enough. In the modern age, we have players of the calibre of Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting who all fall in the same bracket and have dominated both forms of cricket at will. The crictical point here is that every time these greats have gone on to bat, they have been under the scanner. The pressure nowadays is so high that one Sachin failure practically erupts a gossip-mongers paradise as to who should replace him. Television channels seem to be researchers more adept than the best of scientists. Hence taking these accounts into issue, some scepticism must arrive before we come to a genuine conclusion.

Many people still believe what would have happened if a certain Teofilo Stevenson would have fought Mohammad Ali in a professional fight. But the great man refused to turn profesional saying " What is one million dollars compared to one million cubans".Hence even today, some critics still regard the great cuban as the finest boxer of all time.But these ifs and buts can never be categorigcally resolved.

What Rod Laver achieved seems impossible in todays high octane world of tennis.But again it is to be noted that Laver won 4 of his grand slams in 2 surfaces- grass and clay.In this context, the achievements of Andre Agassi and Rafael Nadal stand apart as they have won on all surfaces at the most trying of times. But still the debate of the greatest player in modern tennis primarily hinges on two players who never have won the red clay of Paris- Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.Probably in some years time, Rafael Nadal would put all those doubts to rest but at the moment the debate would linger on. Sampras fans would vie for their man while Federer fans will defend their man who they say wields a tennis racquet like picasso wielded his brush. Again there is a twist here. Even if Federer one day wins the French , he cannot be regarded as the greatest till the point he improves his head to head record against Nadal. If your record against your nearest rival stands 13-6 in your rival's favour, you cannot be titled the greatest.

Similarly Pele and Maradona, Woods and Nicklaus provide another glorious topic for debate enthusiasts. Very few persons have left no space for discussion . The ones that come to mind include Wayne Gretzky,Babe Ruth,Michael Phelps,Michael Jordan ,Carl Lewis,Yelena Isinbayeva,Sergei Bubka, Dhyan Chand, Gary Kaparov and some other greats. But even people might bring these greats into a competition with a logic which no one might have thought of.

So what is the criteria that entitles one the tag to be the greatest? May be there actually is nothing absolute index to determine . Its a perception that we hold of the players performance in their lifetime that allows us to put our thoughts . Perhaps the best criteria would be to judge how a player is performing against his contemporaries. An important point to note is that one cannot compete with his predecessors as dwelving into that imaginary land would be like building castles in the air. The extent to which a player or a team dominates its contemporaries entitles the tag of being supreme. Records obviously have their own importances but the manner in which these records are achieved should also be taken into account. That is the very reason why your contemporaries play a stellar role in your rise. This explains why a Rafel Nadal will make every other grand slam that Roger Federer wins seem like a priceless diamond. Somebody has rightly said" Quality cannot be quantified". Its better to be an appreciator of beauty than to be a judge of it.