On fatuous comparisons and foolish rules

Tiger Woods' latest major tournament victory has led some headline-challenged commentators to declare he is the best sportsman ever. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to say an athlete is the best ever in their sport is unfortunate, to say they are the best anywhere of all time seems like carelessness. It seems a relative easy call to make - yet narrow down the test and see how difficult it becomes. For Woods to be America's best athlete alone would rule out Carl Lewis, Mark Spitz, Michael Johnson, Michael Jordan, Pete Sampras and Jimmy Connors alone. Not to mention women of the calibre of Martina Navaratilova and Chris Evert.

To even compare across the same sport, one needs to take into account four criteria: quality of performance, consistency, opposition and technology. In golf, Woods has the benefit of incredibly enhanced distance and accuracy due to a revolution in club design. It is impossible to know what Jack Nicklaus, Ben Hogan or Norman Von Nida for instance might have achieved with the same equipment. There is an argument that Woods' level of achievement has come at a time of great depth on a highly professional tour, but balancing these factors requires a chat around the bar rather than mathematical precision.

It is hard enough trying to compare Sampras and Federer, and they almost overlap with only the interregnum of Hewitt between the two masters. They have near identical records in terms of tournaments won, but whereas Sampras had several titanic tussles with Agassi, some won, some lost, Federer's battles with Nadal appear almost dictated by the surface they compete on. Federer is a great frontrunner, but can he win from behind? All of these factors make comparing one champion, seemingly a prototype of another, highly problematic.

However one thing cannot be in dispute. One athlete stands above all in terms of his uniqueness, if not all-round achievement. That man is Sir Donald Bradman, whose incredible personal average not only made him the greatest batsman ever but carried his entire team, and at times the morale of his nation, along with him. While the quality of his opposition is debatable, his consistency is beyond comparison. Perhaps the closest in icon status is Babe Ruth, whose defection led to the 'curse of the Bambino', which was blamed for the Boston Red Sox failure to win the world series for eighty two years.

Other players have averaged a hundred for a couple of series, but no one has gone near that for longer, despite questionable bowling and batsman-friendly conditions. Yet Bradman could not simply be the best cricketer - cricket has bowlers in it too. So we are left with players who cannot be compared across the same sport, even at the same time, as they have different roles in the team. Everyone can have their own personal favourites, but comparisons of the greatest ever really belong as arguments to be had at the pub, and not in serious journalism.

An argument that should be had in public is the ridiculous outcome in last night's match between England and New Zealand. Sixteen thousand people waited through some of the most depressing weather Birmingham could dish up only to have the game end one over before it could be a full match due to rain. Of course, despite the match being reduced to a 29 over game and not starting til 3pm, the dinner break was left at 30 minutes. This kind of nonsense makes cricket, particularly one day cricket, an international laughing stock. It has not been adequately explained why 10 minutes is sufficient to adjourn a match after twenty overs in 40 degree heat, yet an extra 20 minutes is required when the match lasts twenty four overs in 15 degree drizzle. The ICC should axe this regulation pronto, and allow the interval to be a minimum of 10 minutes with the consent of both captains. Oddly this happens in a test match, but once players set themselves for a fifty over pyjama battle, it appears they will wilt without 30 minutes break.