How many players from those Celtic teams have numbers hanging from the rafters in the Fleet Center? Plus the NBA had a lot fewer teams then. But Russell is in the discussion. Still, was there ever anyone like Wilt Chamberlain…scoring, rebounds, led the league in assists one year?
Bill Simmons ranks Russell #2, ahead of Kareem and Lebron, though he freely admits that LeBron may overtake Jordan as #1 on his pyramid. He’s also a Celtics fan, so ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I am not a massive hockey fan, but Wayne Gretzky was so dominant, it has to be him.
I would have said Federer at one point as well. I’m not sure now.
Gretzky and Orr are the most common two that get mentioned for GOAT in hockey. They were both transformative players, but very different in their impact. But the biggest problem with calling either the most dominant player is that they were only on the ice for roughly 1/3 or less of the time. In football, at best you’re on the field for half the time. But in a sport like basketball you can be on the court for 90+% of the game, and with only 5 players you can dominate basketball in a way that no one player can dominate hockey or football.
These three guys are special because they did things on field that hadn’t been seen before or since. I know nothing about cricket, but Bradman was apparently head and shoulders above everyone else.
Gretzky scored more often than anyone before or since, and by a wide margin.
Ruth ushered in the concept of home runs, in 1920 he hit more dingers than every team in the league save 2, and one of those was his own team. He was outrageously productive as a hitter, he also was a dominant pitcher before changing positions.
As great as Jordan, Brady, Russell or the others are, none of them did anything individually on the field of play that hadn’t been done before. Dominant athletes leading dominant teams to multiple championships happens pretty frequently, these guys just managed it more often than normal.
Judging the GOAT by how terrible they did in the first half of the game relative to the second half seems like a questionable metric.
I don’t think Federer was ever completely dominant, thanks to Nadal. But tennis is very, very unusual compared to most sports in that the changes of surface make such a big difference, due to the different tactics/playing styles needed.
OTOH 20 years ago here in New York, it was quite common to hear people say Mark Messier was greater than Gretzky. “Messier won a championship without Gretzky, Gretzky never did”. No comment
I said this in our departments “virtual water cooler” chat and no one had any idea who he was.
Though I would say Sobers might have an argument.
And I think we are talking about US big 4 sports here. I don’t think anyone here has looked at water polo greats or European handball ones.
Yep, I’ll third that.
Basketball is 10 players on the court at once, and is a game such that one player CAN be dominant in any given game if the skill and physical ability are there. Jordan is one of them. So is LeBron. So were Larry Bird, Clyde Drexler, Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Isaiah Thomas, etc… Michael Jordan was a player who could do that in spite of other dominant players, and do it night in, and night out over his entire career.
Football’s just got too many moving parts for one single player to be dominant, even one like Tom Brady. As good as he is (and he’s GOOD), he only plays on one side of the ball, and it still takes a good defense, as well as a passable offense to do what Tampa Bay did this season. It takes good coaching and play calling as well.
Football is a sport of synergies between positions. In other words, a good offensive line makes quarterbacks and running backs better. And vice-versa. Good receivers make quarterbacks look better, and vice-versa. And to some degree, someone outstanding can carry the other positions that are dependent on them- i.e. a Hall-of-Fame quarterback can make mediocre receivers look good, or an excellent line can make them all look considerably better. Or great linebackers can make a poor defensive line look better, and vice-versa. But no position on their own can carry the entire team- a poor line, mediocre receivers and running backs can’t all be offset by a stellar quarterback.
Nah… Pele, Maradona, Di Stefano, Puskas, Messi, C. Ronaldo… amateurs 
.
To see how utterly freakish it is, you can look at this graph.
I’ll post the image, but the explanation is above. Or, basically, See that dot on the right? That’s Bradman’s average runs per game. See the rest of the graph? That’s every cricket batter who has played for their country.
I don’t believe any of those people believe that.
The question has to be asked, does winningest automatically = greatest? Especially at the QB position in football?
There have been plenty of great quarterbacks with one or zero Superbowl rings (Dan Marino, Jim Kelly) and a whole lot more mediocre quarterbacks with multiple rings (Eli Manning).
When I see Brady play I see a really good, really competent, consistent QB. But I never hear the sportscasters fawn all over him about an amazing play he made that not many other QBs could pull off.
Mahomes can make ridiculous off balance passes, Wilson can scramble to make yardage out of nothing, Rodgers can read and pick apart defenses, Peyton is incredibly accurate, etc. etc.
And Brady, well, he’s just really competent and does his part when surrounded by a great team.
The overlooked thing is Brady is 43 years old. Have there been any other quarterbacks in NFL history that lasted that long? George Blanda lasted until he was 48 but he was primarily a place kicker after age 39. He did have season in 1970 when he came off the bench for some winning drives and key field goals at age 43 that made him a celebrity. Steve DeBerg retired at age 39 and played a few games at age 44.
Of course the Tampa defense stymied their opponents in the payoffs…something like 4 tds and 6 interceptions plus the offensive line is very important. And the head coach. Age 68?
RE: comparisons to basketball vs. football, one thing to be said in Brady’s favor is, although basketball is a very physical game and there is plenty of opportunity for injury, only in football as a quarterback do you have several 300+ lb. guys constantly trying to body-slam you to the ground as an integral part of the game. Brady’s sheer longevity as a quarterback, not to mention his continued success, is pretty remarkable. He had a cadaver tendon surgically implanted to fix an ACL injury way back in 2008. Usually if an athlete starts needing spare parts from dead people, you would assume their best days were behind them.
I really don’t think this is true. In his first super bowl he was a very good game manager on a solid veteran team that had a great run and improbably won a super bowl. After that he was clearly the best part of every team he was on. He had playoff runs with a dominant supporting cast around him in 2004, 2007 (despite obviously losing the SB) and 2014, but he also had years where he made playoff runs on teams that had no right to.
I agree with the OP just because in something like basketball there is now a debate over who the best player of all time was (honestly I think even prior to Lebron you could make a case between Jordan and someone like Kareem or Wilt) and there is no one you could put against Brady in NFL history with a straight face.
Larry Bird was my favorite player. He had 3-4 other Hall of Fame players on all his winning teams. Somewhat similar for Magic, but I’d give him the edge for that era.
Lasted? Yes, but they didn’t perform at that level. Warren Moon played a little at 44. His NFL career didn’t start until age 28 due to racism. Vinny Testeverde started 6 games during his age 44 season.
Of course, because they don’t play any ‘big’, globally popular sports in Europe