Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Lleyton Hewitt will be Formula One world champion and Sachin Tendulkar will be top scorer in the Premier League.
Has Djokovic become a clearer GOAT in tennis than Messi and Jordan in their sports?
- Thread starter Entername
- Start date
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
That's nice.
BauerAlmeida
Legend
My favorite footballer is Nedved, and I am far more of a fan of him than Djokovic, and she doesn't have a clue who she is. My favorite basketball player is Tim Duncan and she doesn't have a clue either. Because they are far less popular.
Hell, even strictly tennis-related Safin is my favorite and she doesn't know him either.
I can ask in any of my WhatsApp groups now "Does anyone who Djokovic is?" and everyone would be like eh, yeah, what a dumb question. You open up any newspaper on a Sunday and he's there with a trophy, like it was with Nadal until recently as well and Federer during his time.
D
Deleted member 758560
Guest
i believe sud' fav player is manu ginobili
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Is Djokovic kind of popular in Argentina? I ask this because both Federico Coria and Etcheverry idiolize him.
BauerAlmeida
Legend
I suppose he has the typical popularity for an athlete his stature. When he and Nadal came in 2013 to Argentina to play some exho it was a huge fuzz, same as when Federer came in 2012. And now Djokovic is far bigger historically than he was back then. I wouldn't say he is particularly more popular than Nadal or Federer, but I'd say if he came to play an ATP event (like Nadal did a few times), far more tickets would be sold than usual. I'd say Federer is a bit more popular than Nadal and Djokovic but not really a huge difference.
BauerAlmeida
Legend
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Sounds about like some other countries but not like UK, US, Germany, etc. where Federer is far more popular than they are.
RS
Bionic Poster
Felt bad saying that
ActualTennisPlayer
Professional
Re Santos:
Goals Being a better metric than titles doesn’t matter much if goals are still a lousy metric. And goals are a lousy metric: incomparable league, incomparable eras, goals depend on your opponents, your team mates and strategy; goals are just means to an end (the target is to win titles, if you win by 1 goal or multiple is irrelevant); goals are one of multiple ways to impact the game…
PSGs opponents were terrible, that’s true. But Barcelona opponents were really good (real and Atlético). Even if it’s “only” 3 teams it’s tough to win the title here because only one team wins. Meanwhile, I find it hard to believe that Santos had it as difficult. At the 1962 World Cup Santos had 7 players in the World Cup squad, which is the highest
ActualTennisPlayer
Professional
Re Brazil:
My hypothesis is that Brazil/Pele benefited from a weak era. I said that 70s soccer was great, therefore what is relevant is 1958 and 1962 world cup (the years Pele won a world cup).
I base my hypothesis on European soccer being devastated from WW2. This makes logical sense and even urban agreed with me that this had a negative impact.
Now if my hypothesis is true, then the following should happen - serious soccer nations who are not affected by the war (i.e., Brazil, Sweden, Uruguay, Argentina) should do well after WW2 compared to how they normally do. So lets test my prediction:
1. Brazil: Hypothesis confirmed; this was even the best era in Brazilian soccer history.
2. Sweden: Hypothesis confirmed; this was even the best era in Swedish soccer history.
3. Uruguay: Hypothesis confirmed; you can say that the 20s-30s were a better era, but post WW2 was still a historical great era for Uruguay. And note that Uruguay benefited in the 20s-30s for the same reason that they benefited after WW2: European soccer was bad after a world war. So this is additional evidence that my hypothesis is true.
4. Argentina: Hypothesis not confirmed.
Does Argentina invalidate my hypothesis? No, because 3 out of 4 is still a great prediction. Moreover, there is a good reason why Argentina was bad after WW2. They chose to not to participate in the soccer world cups - so they were unable to win titles. Then, after they decided to participate, they had the disadvantage of not participating in world cups for a long time.
ActualTennisPlayer
Professional
Your favela comparison is flawed. World wars are very different to favelas on a lot of dimensions. More importantly, you mix up absolute poverty with relative poverty. People in favelas are "hungry" for success because of inequality in Brazil and soccer is the only way to move up the economic ladder. Though notice that Brazil still has some rich people, so big talents from the favelas can receive big support from Brazil at a later age. However, during WW2 everybody was poor in europe and hence, soccer was not a way to escape poverty. You can also see this with African players. Africa has not been that succesful in soccer because it is a poor continent. However, african players growing up in europe are very succesful because these players are poor compared to other europeans and thus are "hungry" for success and can receive big support from Europe.
Naming all these teams as "proof" that the era was weak is also flawed:
1. You base this on these teams being sucesful. But these teams were succesful because of the era weak.
2. There are much more major soccer nations affected by the war than not affected by the war. Therefore, simply due to the law of large numbers, you will have some succesful European teams. This however does not change the fact that the era was overall weak.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
We don’t have much else as Pele’s assists with Santos were not accurately documented but by all accounts he excelled here as well and there where they are documented (WC games) he is still better than Messi. Titles or team success even in the same era and the same league tells us even less, otherwise R. Horry would be a better basketball player than Charles Barkley.
Spain in 2010 also had 7 players from Barca, the highest. On top, other than Santos, they could buy the best players from countries abroad like Messi, Neymar or Suarez. Due to globalisation and transfers being way more common, the big teams of today are way stronger compared to the smaller ones than they were in former days which manifests in few teams winning next to every season in the big European leagues and the same teams forming the quarters and semis of the CHL every year. In the 90s or even more the 60s there was more variance.
Real is of course on Barca level but we shouldn’t get too enamoured with Atlético.
As for Santos in 62: Mauro and Mengalvio were no superstars, Pepe and Coutinho were on the bench and didn’t play a single minute. The best players from Santos were Gilmar, Zito and Pele. Botafogo had Garrincha, Didi, Amarildo, N. Santos, Jairzinho and Zagallo which is stronger. Cruzeiro had Tostao, Piazza and Dirceu. Palmeiras had Djalma Santos and Mazzola (Altafini) until 58 and Vava starting from 61, Flamengo Gerson, Joel and Orlando. The stars were more spread over several teams and players of other countries didn’t come to play in Brazil at all.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
I don’t really get how you come up with exactly those four countries as there are many more that weren’t affected by war. You say “serious” soccer nations but few posts back you said Sweden is not a big soccer nation, so what is it now? You rather arbitrarily choose four countries, say three out of four had their best period ever and say that is prove that they benefited from other countries being affected by war.
This isn’t such a clear cut you think it is. The key words are “compared to how they normally do”. Brazil in 94-06 had the following results: W, F, W, QF while in 58-70 they were W,W,Group Stage, W. I personally value titles higher than everything so I still agree that Brazil had their very best period in 58-70 but one could well argue that the difference between a quarter and a group stage exit is higher than between a win and a final and also that if those idiots Zagallo and Zico hadn’t suspended Romario prior to 98 WC Brazil would have won three in a row (so from pure player material they were even better in the 90s).
Anyways it is always within a hair. Brazil in the 90s (completely without any war effects) was almost or equally as good as Brazil during Pele’s time (Ronaldo, Romario, Bebeto, Rivaldo, Kaka, Ronaldinho, R.Carlos among others), so it is not that 58-70 was a complete outlier in the history of Brazilian football.
Sweden reached the semi in EC 92 and a third place in WC 94. While that is still worse than in 50-58 (even with the caveat I gave for 50), it still doesn’t look that a second place in their home country is a complete outlier they never ever again came close to achieve.
Uruguay we have gone over it. They were by far the best South-American team for most of the 10s and the best in the world in the 20s and 30s so if anything they slightly regressed in the 50s, given that Brazil seemed to have surpassed them beating them 5-1 at CA 49 and needed the choke of the century to gift them WC 50. Uruguay until today reaches later rounds of WCs, they were always a great football nation, the 50s were no outlier.
Argentina we have gone over it, they did next to nothing in the 50s/60s.
All in all, all these four countries had periods where they were similarly or even more successful so your argument that there was this big outlier where they performed way more successful than normally is simply wrong. You would have a point if Mexico or Canada had had success at WCs, but not with the four examples you gave.
However, ironically where we have a team that performed way better than ever before or after in their football history is with Hungary which was severely affected by war, so your theory does not seem to hold water here either. Similarly, the destroyed UdSSR had their best results in the 50s and 60s even though they still made some noise at ECs in the 70s.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
3 out of 4, especially with pre-selection bias is not a great prediction but statistically irrelevant. On top, with Uruguay you are wrong so it is 2/4 at best which makes it moot.
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
People in Europe were not ALL poor in the years after WW2 especially not compared to people in Rio favelas of the 90s. There were several professions like architects, factory owners, even butchers who could make very good money immediately after the war. The support of young footballers in Brazil was a disaster way until the 90s, the scouting system didn’t work well, players were screwed over by clubs, salaries were not paid, nevertheless superstars developed. Definitely not better than in Europe after WW2.
Milla and Weah grew up and played in Africa until their 20s. Okocha grew up in Africa and only came to Europe at age 17. Etoo played in Kamerun until age 15 before he was drafted by Real. The only one who grew up in France is Drogba. If you refer to guys like Mbappe they are French nationals which is completely different. Growing up in complete poverty in Africa or like Rivaldo who lost his teeth because of malnourishment, gives you way more motivation to make it big in football than growing up in some French banlieues where you might not be rich compared to some people around you but still have enough to eat. For guys like Rivaldo it was about life or death.
Not sure whether this is what you wanted to say but I agree here. Naming Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Sweden to prove the era was weak is definitely flawed.
Last edited:
ActualTennisPlayer
Professional
This is getting a bit ridiculous. You completly ignored what I said about Uruguay. The same factor that explains their golden era in the 20'-30's, explains the golden era of the 50's - World war destroying european soccer. Hence, Uruguay supports my prediction.
You also completly ignored what I said about Argentina - they dont count as they choose not to play.
So 3/3 is an amazing prediction. Btw 3/4 not being statistically irrelevant - where do you get that from?
Then name some major soccer countries which weren't affected by the war...
Re Europe: You completely ignored my points - inequality is important and soccer being a way to escape out of poverty is what matters. Also I included WW2 and after WW2. Also do you want to compare Europe (during WW2 and its aftermath) vs. Favela's in the 90s in terms of death per capita and calories per capita consumed?
Re Africa: Anecdotes can always be outliers and can be impacted by millions of factors. What is important is finding the underlying trend. Yes, there are some good African players - this is logical given their size. But compare this: Africa a population of 1.2 billion with multiple countries above 10 million vs. french of african descent (6 million?). Who performs better - France or any other african nation? This is again solid evidence for my argument.
I debunked this. You cant just repeat your statement, you actually have to address my arguments...
Last edited:
ActualTennisPlayer
Professional
Again, goals being an (allegedly) better metric than titles doesnt mean its a good metric. Its still a terrible metric and you cannot base any conclusions such as Pele is better than Messi on that.
Again, you need to compare Barcelona vs Madrid and Atletico Madrid. Comparing Madrid players with Barcelona players, you will see Barcelona is not much better. Meanwhile, Santos does look way better then all the other teams except maybe Botafogo. Hence, Messis competition is not easier for winning titles than Peles.
D
Deleted member 758560
Guest
robben coulda changed everything
and their wins against portugal was thanks wrong offside decisions. against germany there was a foul on özil in the first half which should have been a penalty for germany. spain was very lucky in 2010, it was like all their bad luck from other world cups was compensated in the 2010 wc
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
I ignored it because it is a little moot. If you want to discuss all away with countries being affected by war we never get to any consensus. You SPECIFICALLY said Uruguay had their best period in the 50s which is factually wrong as they had it in the 20s/30s. In 24 Olympics they destroyed Yugoslavia and beat Netherlands and Switzerland who were both not affected by war. In 28 they beat Germany and Italy. Italy was the best European team during that time, winning the Central European International Cup from 1927-30 and 1933-35 and the WCs in 1934 and 1938. If you say they were weakened by WW1 so be it but they were still the best European team maybe alongside Austria, whereas European countries that were not affected by war didn’t perform as well. By your logic, the countries not affected by WW1 should have performed relatively better.
In 1950 Uruguay got very lucky and a 4th place at 54 is nothing which they haven’t achieved later as well (1970, 2010).
RE Argentina: LOL. YOU brought them up and now you hastily change goal posts and say they should not count. They did participate in both 58 and 62 (you know the both WCs you are specifically targeting) and lost both times in the group stage. That they didn’t play in 50 and 54 means nothing for their performance later. Do not know how you come to the idea that not playing one WC would give you a disadvantage at the next. So neither Argentina nor Uruguay supports your prediction.
4 is a too small sample size to be statistically relevant especially if the observations are cherry-picked. If your theory then only holds true for two out of the four it is basically meaningless.
If it is restricted to major soccer countries then your Sweden example does not apply either in which case your prediction is 1/3 (and this only by a hair since Brazil 1994-2006 isn’t really much worse than 58-70, which you btw did not address).
What is also a big factor is that when you are poor you don’t have as many distractions of luxury. Favelas in the 90s you had good chances to be shot, become drug addict, had no good shoes, not much to eat, no training facilities. Absolutely a less favourable place for football talent to develop than in WW2 aftermaths in Germany or other European countries, nevertheless an immense amount of great players emerged.
Not all French national players are from African descent. Henry and Thuram have their roots in Guadeloupe just to name two. Then you have/had guys like Platini, Griezmann, Barthez, Blanc etc. The players who do have African descent are from multiple different African countries, Zidane has Algerian parents, Viera had his roots in Senegal. Mbappe’s parents are from Cameroon and Algeria. So the fact that France performs better than each African nation individually does not say much. If a team consisting of the 11 best French players with Algerian parents would beat the Algerian national team (or replace Algeria with any other nation) then you would have a point.
You have a strange idea of debunking. You tried to prove that Brazil, Argentina, Sweden and Uruguay performed better than normal after WW2, with none of the four did to a meaningful extent (not even Brazil if we take 94-2006). The one big outlier however is Hungary who performed WAY better than before or since. You said here:
So your whole argument is based on saying Hungary was only good because the other European nations were weak. Does not sound cogent given that they also beat Brazil and Uruguay who weren’t affected by WW2. Btw other than Hungary and UdSSR you also have France who played really well with Kopa, Piantoni and Fontaine in 58. Way better than they did in the 60s or 70s or before 1939.
Botafogo definitely was better than Santos, while it is arguable with Barca and Real (roughly equal in most years I would say). Atlético is clearly worse than both, of course Palmeiras, Flamengo and Cruzeiro were also worse than Santos but the margin between them and Barca-Atlético is roughly equal. So we have one team (Botafogo) that is better and three teams on the level of Atlético-like competition (relatively speaking).
Last edited:
RS
Bionic Poster
I am going to watch back the highlights of some those games. Still remember the final fairly well because of the occasion.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
To be fair they dominated Germany in the semi. It was amazing that they only won 1-0.
domination doesnt mean much in football, and it doesnt justify wrong referee decisions which decide the outcome of the match.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Does not justify it. But they squandered many chances. Even if the penalty had been given I think Spain would have won nevertheless.
no they didnt have much chances, i remember two chances plus the goal when the score was 0:0 and one when they had the lead. they didnt create much chances in any of their games, either not able to or not possible with that style or both.
and how can you say spain would have won if the penalty would be given and if germany would have scored? 0 proof for that, it would be clearly advantage germany. yes germany was disappointing in that game, but spain got lucky here. but against portugal and paraguay it was a much bigger scandal, or it should have been a scandal. but no one cares about those offside mistakes, i dont get it, they decided those 2 ko games! spain is regarded by some even as one of the strongest world cup winners, which is a total joke.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
They had a lot of dangerous middle-ranged shots either saved by Neuer or only slightly missing on top of the chances you mentioned. Pedro towards the end of the game completely squandered what could have been the 2-0. They were in complete control of the match. On top, whether the foul on Özil really was a penalty is arguable. Could have given it, but not a blatantly and outrageously wrong decision.
I said it was my opinion not that I have any proof for it. How are we supposed to prove it. Agree that Portugal and Paraguay they were lucky and that it is of course a joke to call them one of the strongest WC winners. Maybe their team from 2008-2012 was all in all one of the strongest squads but at 2010 WC specifically they were not very convincing.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Likely yes. But assists were not recorded back then and most of his games (especially in Paulista) likely don’t exist on tape so it will be next to impossible to have the exact number. Going by accounts from contemporaries and by the assists in games that were recorded, his assist tally seems to be quite high. It is a little bit like Wilt’s or Russ’ number of blocked shots. You know well they would be very close to the top and can get approximations by the games that are on tape, but you cannot get the full number.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Yes 361 was the last stat I read. About Pele there are infos about 369 floating around, but as I said, this is likely as reliable as Friedenreich’s 1329 goals. Puskas would be number one all time in assists according to most sources. While also not reliable in terms of total number, it again shows how ridiculously good he was. 84 goals in 85 games for Hungary, crazy goal stats for both Budapest and Real, several European Cup titles. Had they won the 54 final I would view him as a serious GOAT candidate, even now I find him severely underrated.
He is clearly ahead of Di Stéfano who is ranked higher by many.
He is clearly ahead of Di Stéfano who is ranked higher by many.
Last edited:
I find it funny how some who are arguing in favor of Djokovic are using stats that are extremely negligible that Messi lacks compared to other GOAT contender players (like 1 less champions league trophy compared to Cristiano Ronaldo or only two fewer world cups than Pele) but yet are blatantly turning a blind eye to the astronomical and disgraceful (relatively speaking of course) difference between Djokovic and his main rival: Nadal in one of the oldest and most prestigious slams / surfaces that is clay. Like you want us to ignore the laughable 13 fewer Roland Garros titles and astronomically fewer clay titles? But because Messi lacks only 1 champions league title compared to Cristiano or 2 world cups compared to Pele, he can't be the GOAT.
Talk about lack of consistency and fanaticism!
Anyhow, I'm not sure how this is even a debate. Djokovic can never be the GOAT until he also becomes clay GOAT. This is undeniable! To be the greatest in tennis, you have to be the GOAT in absolutely each and every surface according to my criteria, As it stands, that's a task beyond Djokovic's capacity. Djokovic may have been born to surpass Roger Federer, but no matter what he does, years of practicing a gluten free diet, years of data analytics, years of yoga / stretching exercises to improve flexibility and injury management, years of plant-based diet, years of meticulously studying Nadal on clay, years of doing everything within his power, he still has not been able to remotely make neither the head to head, nor the overall number of titles won on clay even competitive. And you want us to call this guy even a GOAT, much less greater than Messi or Michael Jackson in their own respective sports? I mean, how absolutely pathetic the standards have to be in tennis? LMAO
The only two players that can remotely be considered GOAT's in the sport of tennis are Rafael Nadal on clay and Bjorn Borg on clay. No other player, including Djokovic has ever shown the unbeatable aura on any surface or any tournament and the margin of superiority that those two have shown on clay.
I mean, at least make it competitive! If Djokovic had won 5 Roland Garros titles while also preventing Nadal from winning more, likely making sure he wins no more than 7, than at least he'd have a case there. Even with 1 less Wimbledon title compared to Roger Federer, I can still see a case of him being the greater Wimbledon and grass player simply due to his 3-1 record over Federer and due to the fact that he had to beat a member of the big 3 five times to win Wimbledon while Federer had to beat a big 3 member only three times. Analyzing these contexts, a more than convincing argument can be made Djokovic has surpassed Federer on grass and subsequently in every format of tennis. But his clay record is not even remotely close in absolutely any way shape or form compared to Nadal on clay. That will forever tarnish his legacy and prevent him from being truly the greatest overall. And no, excuses like Nadal being too good on clay is simply not valid. If Djokovic was truly destined to be GOAT, he would have found a way to do on clay to Nadal what he managed to do on grass against Federer, especially considering the sheer amount of time he had to make so many changes to his life to dethrone Nadal on clay. But his inferiority proves he was never destined to be the greatest.
Talk about lack of consistency and fanaticism!
Anyhow, I'm not sure how this is even a debate. Djokovic can never be the GOAT until he also becomes clay GOAT. This is undeniable! To be the greatest in tennis, you have to be the GOAT in absolutely each and every surface according to my criteria, As it stands, that's a task beyond Djokovic's capacity. Djokovic may have been born to surpass Roger Federer, but no matter what he does, years of practicing a gluten free diet, years of data analytics, years of yoga / stretching exercises to improve flexibility and injury management, years of plant-based diet, years of meticulously studying Nadal on clay, years of doing everything within his power, he still has not been able to remotely make neither the head to head, nor the overall number of titles won on clay even competitive. And you want us to call this guy even a GOAT, much less greater than Messi or Michael Jackson in their own respective sports? I mean, how absolutely pathetic the standards have to be in tennis? LMAO
The only two players that can remotely be considered GOAT's in the sport of tennis are Rafael Nadal on clay and Bjorn Borg on clay. No other player, including Djokovic has ever shown the unbeatable aura on any surface or any tournament and the margin of superiority that those two have shown on clay.
I mean, at least make it competitive! If Djokovic had won 5 Roland Garros titles while also preventing Nadal from winning more, likely making sure he wins no more than 7, than at least he'd have a case there. Even with 1 less Wimbledon title compared to Roger Federer, I can still see a case of him being the greater Wimbledon and grass player simply due to his 3-1 record over Federer and due to the fact that he had to beat a member of the big 3 five times to win Wimbledon while Federer had to beat a big 3 member only three times. Analyzing these contexts, a more than convincing argument can be made Djokovic has surpassed Federer on grass and subsequently in every format of tennis. But his clay record is not even remotely close in absolutely any way shape or form compared to Nadal on clay. That will forever tarnish his legacy and prevent him from being truly the greatest overall. And no, excuses like Nadal being too good on clay is simply not valid. If Djokovic was truly destined to be GOAT, he would have found a way to do on clay to Nadal what he managed to do on grass against Federer, especially considering the sheer amount of time he had to make so many changes to his life to dethrone Nadal on clay. But his inferiority proves he was never destined to be the greatest.
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Lol “only” two fewer WC. You do know that only a handful of players has ever won two WC to begin with in the whole history of football right? I mean you can of course say in team sports comparing titles does not tell the whole story, but then you can discount it all together. If we do compare titles, two fewer world cups is not “extremely negligible”.
This criteria does not make sense. GOAT simply means greatest of all times which translates to simply being greater than all the others. Since there is no player who is even remotely the best on all surfaces, Djokovic can easily have the best resume of all players who ever played without being the best on any individual surface. I don’t say that he necessarily is, because you cannot compare across eras, but he does have the numbers right now and demanding him to be clay GOAT is ridiculous. With that criteria we will never have any GOAT.
What sports did Michael Jackson play?
Lol “only” two fewer WC. You do know that only a handful of players has ever won two WC to begin with in the whole history of football right? I mean you can of course say in team sports comparing titles does not tell the whole story, but then you can discount it all together. If we do compare titles, two fewer world cups is not “extremely negligible”.
This criteria does not make sense. GOAT simply means greatest of all times which translates to simply being greater than all the others. Since there is no player who is even remotely the best on all surfaces, Djokovic can easily have the best resume of all players who ever played without being the best on any individual surface. I don’t say that he necessarily is, because you cannot compare across eras, but he does have the numbers right now and demanding him to be clay GOAT is ridiculous. With that criteria we will never have any GOAT.
What sports did Michael Jackson play?
Two fewer world cups is still astronomically more 'negligible' (especially considering we're comparing players from vastly different eras) than 13 fewer roland garros titles in the very same era alone. I mean, this is literally no-brainer.
This criteria does not make sense to you, which is your opinion. To me, there is no such thing as tennis GOAT. The only GOAT from the sport of tennis is either Nadal on clay or Borg on clay. Other than that, No such thing exists. My criteria for 'GOAT' is of extremely high standard. And according to my standard, given that the sport of tennis is played on clay and has been for as long as tennis has existed, it is a requirement to be clay GOAT to also be overall tennis GOAT. Otherwise, you can never qualify. You can say you disagree, but again, that's just your opinion.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
The biggest storyline since who shot Phil Mitchell.
RS
Bionic Poster
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Borg also played in another era and how do you come to 13 FO? Nadal has 14, Nole has 3, so it is 11 fewer.
Of course you are entitled to your criteria but in this case there will never be a GOAT. Nobody will ever be the best on every surface.
That was so huge, that it delayed the kick off time for a European semi-final, between Barcelona and Liverpool, by 15 minutes.
Similar threads
