He came through our lives like a bolt of lightning and almost like that he was gone. It’s hard to believe but it’s been more than ten years now since those halcyon days when that exquisite specimen of a footballer with the jet black hair, the buck-toothed smile and the feet of Fred Astaire was the most electrifying and some would say the greatest athlete on the planet.

Even in the days of Tiger, Serena, Kobe and Roger Federer, at the very height of his magical and mystical powers there was a distinct argument to be made that it was in fact Ronaldinho who was the greatest athlete in the world.

But almost like a modern day Mike Tyson, even though his reign of terror was relatively brief, the legend of Ronaldinho lives on and he still remains a much loved figure and a source of fascination and to his legion of fans from around the globe.

Partly because of his talent, partly because of his charisma, and partly because he came to embody that most fascinating of sporting subjects: The great sporting enigma who promises the moon but delivers the stars instead.

Impact is achieved in a variety of different ways. For most people it’s through an entire body of work but for a very special few it’s done not so much by what they do, but how they do it.

Before his premature death, James Dean made three definitive movies: Giant; East of Eden; Rebel without a Cause. In the years since, many have questioned how good an actor he actually was, and it has to be said method acting hasn’t aged particularly well, while others have questioned how good those movies really were.

But Dean came to define an era. Partly because of his style, partly because of his charisma, and partly because of his look, all of which became exaggerated in death because it gave him an almost mythical aura that became frozen in time.

But his impact went beyond what he did and was as much about how he did it and what he stood for. He became the poster child for a generation of disillusioned American youth who could identify with this strikingly handsome man who played the role of an outsider looking in.

In that sense, his greatest gift may have been finding the right scripts or the other way round. His impact was compact, condensed and concentrated but still pierced through the American psyche because he struck a chord with a segment of American youth who saw their own lives through him.

The sporting world and the entertainment world are often two very different beasts but in this sense they may be closer than you think. Longevity is not always a prerequisite for impact. Brilliance is. Brilliance often trumps time.

Ronaldinho, like Tyson, falls into this category. It’s the images of Mike Tyson pummelling opponents to an inch of their life that lives in the memory and it’s the images of Ronaldinho doing things on a football field that seemed unbelievable that turned him into a cult figure.

In The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Brad Pitt plays the title character who is born old but acts young. In the sporting sense and in the life sense I always got that feeling with Ronaldinho.

As a football player, he was wise beyond his years. He seemed to read the field like a grand chess master; in high-definition, faster and clearer than everyone else.

He knew the angles, had great peripheral vision, understood time and space, all of which meant that he invariably made the right play at the right time. Like Bobby Fischer, he was always one step ahead of the game, processing information and his mind working faster than everyone else on the field.

But in life, he was a kid at heart. He never seemed to lose that innocence of youth and still gave you that feeling he was an eight year old playing in his mum’s backyard, and I think that’s what endeared him to so many people around the world. There was no pretence; no playing to the gallery. He was just a kid having the time of his life.

There was something very Brazilian about him. He brought the samba and put the rhythm into football, knocking the ball around like he was still on the beach down at Copacabana. He brought the street game to the world game.

The way that Ronaldinho played football is the way that kids on the streets down in Sao Paulo or Rio de Jeneirio play their football. It’s instinctive; it’s intuitive; and a lot of the time it’s completely improvised.

The difference was that he was good enough to adapt it to a professional setting. He took the skeleton of beach football and turned into something resembling real football.

If you go to any playground around the world you will see a lot of street-ballers who can shake and bake with the best of them. They’ve got all the tricks, they can jive, they can dance, they can do it all, but works on the playground doesn’t work in the pros, except for a special few.

Ronaldinho, like ‘Magic’ Johnson, in my opinion the athlete that he most closely resembled was one of the few who could bring the ‘magic’ of the street game to the real game.

Everybody wants to play like Magic Johnson but there has only ever been one guy who has ever actually been Magic Johnson, and it’s the same with Ronaldinho.

In the case of both of them, their greatest gift was to combine style with substance: To be so utterly compelling and yet still completely devastating at the same time. Guys like that are few and far between.

‘Magic’ brought the playground to the pros and Ronaldino brought football on the street to football on grass and nobody has ever made it look better.

To be fair, we had seen a little bit of his show before in the form of his legendary countryman, Ronaldo. But Ronaldo worked largely in straight lines, would give you that little head fake of his and then slide straight past you with the speed and strength of an Olympic bobsledder.

Ronaldinho was a little different in that he very rarely showed you the same move twice. It was like he was just making it up as he went along. He was like a freestyle rapper who could come up with lyrics on the fly and all you really needed was to give him a beat. Jay-Z never freestyled as well as this guy did.

But what took his greatness to another level was the explosiveness. The term ‘game-breaker’ was almost invented for him. He had a fifth gear like few others and he could crack a game open with a fifteen minute burst of excellence as well as anyone.

In any sport a guy who can break the lines is worth his weight in gold. Ronaldinho was not just a ‘game-breaker’ – he was also a ‘line-breaker’. He often took the defense out of the equation through speed with the ball.

In that sense, he was very similar to a Jonah Lomu in rugby union or a Barry Sanders in American football. He could convert defense into attack by winning the ball in the heart of midfield, taking defenders on and breaking the lines through quick ball movement.

He was a faster, taller version of Diego Maradonna. They both had that earth-shattering ability to break a game open through an act of genius or a moment of divine inspiration.

Ronaldinho, like Maradonna, was essentially an improviser. His greatest gift was the ability to create something out of nothing: To make something happen when nothing was supposed to happen.

That’s the gift that is given to very few and that’s the gift that separates the gods from the mortals. Pele’ had it; Maradonna had it; Ronaldinho had it. All of those guys were unplayable because they had something that nobody else had.

It’s often forgotten now, but when Ronaldinho arrived Barcelona was at a bit of a crossroads. They had gone four years without winning the title and had finished fourth, fourth and sixth in the preceding three years. The trend line was down and they were a club seemingly going backwards.

To make matters worse, there was upheaval off the field as well. They were heavily in debt and a new president was being installed. As part of his pitch, Joan Laporta promised to bring David Beckham to the Nou Camp but while that didn’t happen he did recruit Frank Rijkaard and Ronaldinho and things began to turn around.

The lights came on almost as soon as Ronaldinho walked through the door. It took him half a season to work his magic. After bottoming out and being last at the half way mark of year one, while he was out injured, he grabbed that team by the throat, put them on his back, and almost single-handedly dragged them to an inch of the title in the second half of the year.

In many ways, I think his first year at Barcelona was almost his best year because he did that almost by himself. There was no Eto’o, there was no Deco, and Xavi and Iniesta were not yet the players they would become, but he just won games almost single-handedly.

They finished second to Valencia by five points and had he not missed six games through injury they would have won the title that first year which would have been a truly remarkable turnaround considering what he inherited and where they were at the half way mark.

But people often forget about that year because a lot of people outside of Spain didn’t see him. Barcelona finished sixth the previous year so they hadn’t qualified for the Champions League, so he wasn’t on many people’s radar or on their TV screens outside of Spain.

But that gives you an idea of how much things have changed for Barcelona in the years since. In the years since, guys like Messi and Guardiola have obviously taken the baton and run with it, but Rijkaard and Ronaldinho deserve a lot of credit for turning that ship around.

While they may be the biggest sporting brand in the world now, in 2003 they were in a very different space and far from the juggernaut they are today. You can’t help but feel that Rijkaard’s temperament and Ronaldinho’s star power had a lot to do with that.

Together, they combined to give the club the shot in the arm and the global exposure they needed to change the course of history and correct a ship that was heading in the wrong direction.

Ronaldinho’s impact at Barcelona in those early days was not dissimilar to what Larry Bird and Magic Johnson did in their early years in the NBA, meaning it was almost immediate and instantaneous.

The year before Bird arrived at Boston they won 29 games. In his first year with the Celtics they won 62 games and Bird led them to the Conference finals. In the years he was there, they won three titles under his watch.

His impact was probably only surpassed by Magic Johnson. It’s a cliché but Magic turned the Lakers from being a bridesmaid to the bride. In twelve full seasons, he led them to the NBA finals nine times and won five championships. Theirs is one of sport’s most storied rivalries.

Different sports, obviously, but Ronaldinho did something very similar at Barcelona and he did it by doing a lot of things that Bird and Magic did. He was a very similar sort of player. Ronaldinho was primarily a facilitator: His first instinct was to always bring his team-mates into the game and the reason why he was so successful was because he did what Bird and Magic did.

He had the gift of passing, he shared the ball around, and he made everyone around him better because he gave his team-mates a chance to succeed. But like Bird and Magic, he also had that ability to take the game over at big moments which took his greatness to another level.

And that was just what he did on the field. You can’t underestimate the power of his personality. Not dissimilar to Magic Johnson, he had that infectious personality that lit up a room and created a buzz and an energy about everything he did.

Before Magic arrived at the Lakers they already had Kareem, a top five player himself, but as great as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was, it was the power of Magic Johnson’s personality that took the Los Angeles Lakers to another level, even though Kareem was arguably the better player. Ronaldinho did something very similar at Barcelona and he did it with a supporting cast that wasn’t anywhere near as deep as what they have now.

If his time at Barcelona turned him into an icon the impact he had for his country secured his legacy. He became one of the few players to run the table and win all the major trophies for both club and country alike.

The 2002 World Cup would see three of the greatest attacking players of their generation: Ronaldo, Rivaldo and Ronaldinho all lined up together. They were so great that between 1996 and 2005 they accounted for six of the ten FIFA World Player of the Year awards handed out.

Ronaldo won it in 1996, 1997 and 2002. Rivaldo won it in 1999 and Ronaldinho won it in 2004 and 2005. In the out years, Zidane won it three times and Luis Figo won it once, but by and large the Brazilians seemed to have a bit of a monopoly on it for much of that decade.

No international team has had three award winners before. But that was quite a top-heavy Brazilian team. They had five of the greatest players of all time: Ronaldo; Rivaldo; Ronaldinho; Cafu and Roberto Carlos, but after that there was quite a big drop-off.

If the first three were three of the greatest attacking players of their generation, the last two would feature on the shortlist of the greatest defensive players of any generation.

But that side didn’t have the depth of some of its illustrious predecessors. They struggle in the lead-up to that tournament, and there wasn’t much expectation going in, but once the tournament began it all clicked and they ended up going through undefeated.

But it has to be said they did rely a lot on individual brilliance. It invariably took an act of Ronaldo, an act of Rivaldo, or an act of Ronaldinho to get them over the line. Big tournaments are invariably won by great players and Brazil had more of those than anyone else.

I know Ronaldo won the silver ball but I think that had as much to do with the fact that at stage he was the biggest name of the trio by some distance. That combined with the fact that he was coming back from injury created a compelling narrative.

Not to say that he wasn’t influential, but I remember watching that tournament, and I saw all of Brazil’s games, and personally I always thought that it was Rivaldo who was Brazil’s most influential player, and I think their coach Luiz Felipe Scolari shares those sentiments.

I thought Ronaldo got better as the tournament wore on, and to his credit he did score in most of the games, but in terms of general field play, I thought Rivaldo was the one who really controlled the play and was the dominant figure in a lot of the games.

Ronaldo stole the show in the last two games, scoring the only goals in the final and the semi final, but my overriding memory from the start of that tournament through to the middle stages was that it was more the Rivaldo and Ronaldinho show.

My overriding memories for at least the first two thirds were of Ronaldinho going on those long, darting runs of his, setting his team-mates up and bringing his colleagues into the game by controlling the middle of the park and breaking games open with his speed and pace.

Rivaldo did what Rivaldo does: Bobbing up, creating something out of nothing, turning half-chances into goals, and generally just being a nuisance for the opposition.

Before Ronaldinho, Rivaldo was my favourite player. If Wasim Akram was the left hand of god then Rivaldo was the left foot of god. He didn’t have a right side but it didn’t seem to matter too much because there can’t have been too many more devastating weapons in the world of football than the left foot of Rivaldo.

But that was a great Brazilian team; even they did rely very heavily on a few. I think the ‘Three R’s’ deserve equal credit because if you took one out Brazil wouldn’t have won the trophy. They didn’t have enough depth to do that. Not that Brazilian team.

Along with Roberto Carlos, it was fitting that all three were named to FIFA’s team of the tournament because at various stages they won games almost single-handedly, and without Rivaldo and Ronaldinho, there is a very good chance they could have gone out to England in the Round of sixteen before those two turned the game on its head.

But I actually think the 1998 team that lost the final to France was a little more even across the board and certainly had more depth. But you could even make the case that the 1994 side with Romario in his prime would have given them both a run for their money.

But that was a great era for Brazil. Between 1994 and 2002 they went to three World Cup finals in a row, winning two and losing one, and it certainly compares favourably with their golden era between 1958 and 1970 when they won three World Cups in four cycles.

But that would be an interesting exercise: If you could line up a ‘Best-of’ side from their two golden eras. On the one hand you would have Pele’, Garrincha, Jairzinho, Rivelino and Didi up against Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho and Romario which would be a mouth-watering contest if they ever all walked on to the field together.

But in the end, like a lot of the great Brazilian players, the thing that will always stand out about Ronaldinho was the artistry: It was the how as much as the what. He could put on a show with the best of them.

But if you look at it objectively, the dude’s resume stacks up. He won every major tournament there is to win and he did most of his damage in a four or five year burst of excellence that nobody who saw it will ever forget.

He won the 2002 World Cup; 2005 Confederations Cup; 2006 Champions League; La Liga in 2004/5 and 2005/6; the 2013 Copa Libertadores and the 2014 Recopa Sudamericana.

He swept the board on most continents and most tournaments around the world and it’s pretty clear that none of those teams would have lifted the trophy without his influence.

The two La Liga’s he won were no ordinary championships either because he went through some serious firepower to get them. He ran through a stacked Real Madrid team that had far more talent on paper and featured arguably two of the top ten players of all-time in Ronaldo and Zidane with guys like Raul, Luis Figo, Iker Casillas, David Beckham and Roberto Carlos waiting in the wings.

He ran through a team that had three FIFA World Player of the Year award winners in it (Ronaldo, Zidane, Figo) and another three who at various stages had all finished in the top three of that award (Beckham, Raul, Roberto Carlos), so those were no ordinary championships.

The best analogy to Ronaldinho’s impact in those early days at Barcelona is Diego Maradonna’s time at Napoli where he just changed the culture, shook things up, won games through force of personality, individual brilliance, and his own genius.

His best club years are comparable to any given the quality of opposition he went through but he also dominated two major international tournaments: The 1999 Confederations Cup and the 2005 Confederations Cup, winning the golden ball and bronze ball respectively, leading Brazil to the final on both occasions.

He may well be the greatest player in the history of the Confederations Cup because he was named player of the final in 2005 and his nine goals are the highest in the history of the tournament. When you combine that with his impact at the 2002 World Cup, he had some big moments for his country as well.

But perhaps the most interesting chapter in the Ronaldinho story came a couple of years ago, and again context here is important. Atletico Mineiro, one of Brazil’s oldest clubs had enjoyed a degree of success at both the domestic and national level, but they were coming off a relatively unproductive period in the 2000s.

It was not at all dissimilar to the situation he encountered at Barcelona all of those years ago, and they had never won either of the two major international trophies for South American clubs.

The Copa Libertadores, the South American equivalent of the Champions League, for those who don’t know, was founded in 1960 and the Recopa Sudamericana, founded in 1989, had always eluded them.

It took Ronaldinho two years to bring both trophies back to Mineiro which led to him being named 2013 South American footballer of the year, so he didn’t completely fall off the radar as some may have assumed.

His iconic status as an impact player cannot be understated. He had an amazing career; one of the greatest careers. I think he was really the bridge between two eras: The Zinadine Zidane/Ronaldo era and the Lionel Messi/Cristiano Ronaldo era.

But in his prime, he was as good as any of those guys, and if I had to build a team around one of them at peak value I wouldn’t be at all opposed to picking him first.

He broke the lines, he was dynamic, he was explosive, and like a Magic Johnson and a Larry Bird he had that gift of passing which made others around him better because he put his team-mates in a position to succeed.

He was the complete package, and this is a little bit more subjective, but for mine he was also the best to watch. To me, he was a cross between Zidane and his countryman Ronaldo. He combined the artistry of Zidane with the explosiveness of Ronaldo and in full flight he was a sight to behold.

If Zinadine Zidane was a footballing Picasso then Ronaldinho was a footballing Jimi Hendrix: An explosive, electrifying rock star who shook up the world, did things his way and could put on a show like few others.

At least for a couple of years, he was the Magic Johnson of football: A singular star that all the other stars orbited around who could facilitate, orchestrate and dominate all at the same time.

Like the legendary Lakers man, he did it with a smile on his face, he made the impossible look routine, he won titles, he won trophies, he did what he was supposed to do but he did it in such a manner that drew you in and made you want to watch.

For all of those reasons and more, he is my favourite athlete of the last fifteen years, bar none, and of those most magnetic and compelling sporting figures that I can recall watching.

For those who don’t know, I had quite a long battle with depression; it derailed me for a long time and I still have issues with it today, but I have to say that even in those dark days the sight of Ronaldinho on a football field always seemed to put a smile on my face, and in the end I think that will be his eternal legacy.

He brought a lot of joy to a lot of people around the world because for a lot of people sport is just another form of entertainment and Ronaldinho was the ultimate entertainer.

Athletes come and go, performers come and go, but the ones who are timeless, the ones who are transcendent are the ones who bring something to the game and something to their craft that nobody else has.

Hendrix did it on the guitar; Johnny Coltrane did it on the saxophone; Myles Davis did it with jazz; and this guy did it by making sweet music on a football field.

In the end, because his career is essentially one of epic highs but ultimately unfulfilled promise, at least at the highest level, he may not be the greatest player, or the most consistent player, or the most productive player, but he will always be my favourite player.

Yeah, he was more Tyson than Ali, and it didn’t last for very long, but my god, how much fun was it while it did?

10 of the best: 10 great sporting enigmas

1. Mike Tyson

Mike Tyson is possibly the most famous boxer outside of Muhammad Ali which is testament to his star power and charisma. The legend of Tyson was built on about a four or five year period in the late eighties when he was legitimately The Baddest man on the Planet.

But much like the subject of this article the reason why Tyson is such a compelling figure is because people genuinely loved watching Mike Tyson fight. He didn’t so much squash the opposition as eviscerate it.

He won his first 37 fights, nineteen by knockout including twelve in the first round. At peak value, he was possibly the most awesome force to step inside the ring since George Foreman.

There was an overwhelming ferocity and a sense of Daniel being thrown to the lions at a Tyson fight. It was true bloodsport. As brutal as it sounds, you came to see someone getting knocked out.

If Mike Tyson has the exact same record but he fights like Larry Holmes it’s not the same Mike Tyson story. It’s a combination of his overwhelming dominance and the ferocity of his beatdowns that turned him into a global star.

People sometimes question his calibre of opposition, and maybe there is something to that, but he did still beat Michael Spinks, Trevor Berbick, albeit an aging Larry Holmes and Frank Bruno twice, so he did still get some nice scalps under his belt.

Tyson had issues with focus, discipline and control, but to his credit he seems to have really settled down these last couple of years, but regardless of where you stand on Mike Tyson personally, I don’t think there is anyone who saw him fight who thinks that he was anything other than box-office gold.

2. George Best

George Best would come to embody the excess of celebrity culture almost as much anybody. He lived hard, he played hard, but in the end he died young because it proved to be a lifestyle that was unstainable.

His career paralleled Ronaldinho in that his star shone brightly but all too briefly and he retired from Manchester United at 27 and only made sporadic appearances around the world from that point on.

But again, impact is not time dependant and George Best left a big impact because he was an electrifying player and an even more electrifying personality.

He was witty, he was funny and he is also the author of one of the most famous lines in all of sport and popular culture:

I spent a lot of money on booze, birds (women) and fast cars – the rest I just squandered.

I don’t know how many times that line gets quoted every year but it’s a lot. It’s clearly a metaphor for Best’s tumultuous life because he didn’t just say it or think it, he lived it.

But in between his off-field conquests and his regular sessions at the pub, George Best could seriously play football. Built like a jockey, blessed with a low centre of gravity, he was quick, nimble and agile. He had fast feet and was a great dribbler in heavy traffic.

He was also tough and uncompromising and gave as good as he got, but it was his skill with the ball that made him a star. He led United to two domestic titles and the 1968 European Cup.

He didn’t have much of an opportunity to showcase his talent on the international stage because Northern Ireland weren’t a particular strong team but George Best was a transcendent star driven and aided by a culture that worships fame and celebrity.

He was one of sport’s first pop icons and the nickname El Beatle, given to him by the Portuguese media, perhaps summed him up best because for a while there he really was as big as John, Paul, Ringo or George.

3. John McEnroe

John McEnroe was erratic, controversial and brilliant, possibly in that order. The SuperBrat as he was known was one of the most compelling and recognisable sporting figures in the eighties.

McEnroe’s temper tantrums became legendary, but like a lot of natural performers the suspicion is that a lot of it was done in the name of theatre. Underneath an almost volcanic exterior was a true master who understood the craft of tennis like few others.

McEnroe knew the angles, understood the subtleties, and played tempo as well as anyone. He was never a big man or a heavy hitter, but his court craft was quite exceptional. He was always willing to adapt, always flexible, rarely predictable and always kept you on your toes.

His great calling cards were subtlety and finesse. He had great hands, was quick at the net, and could move an opponent around the court as well as anyone.

He had some great rivalries, most notably with Bjorn Borg and Ivan Lendl. Borg v McEnroe was a clash of the titans underpinned by their contrasting temperaments and their contrasting styles of play.

Borg was the antithesis of McEnroe: Cool, calm and collected, and liked to play from the back of the court, but it made for compelling viewing and their rivalry was famously dubbed fire and ice because they were such contrasting characters.

The wily old fox (Borg) had the young upstart (McEnroe) under control for a long time, but eventually the wheel began to turn and McEnroe would prove to be irresistible in his own right.

After Borg, his next great rivalry would come in the form of Ivan Lendl, another contrasting player and personality. Lendl was unflappable on the court but metronomic, almost robotic from the back of the court but he did have the better of their rivalry, grinding opponents down as was his way.

But McEnroe was the most transcendent star of the eighties by some distance. He won seven grand slams, held the world number one ranking for 170 weeks, and went 82-3 in 1984 to record the best single season winning percentage in the Open era.

As efficient as Lendl was, as classy as Edberg was, as exciting as Becker was, and as unique as Connors was, McEnroe was the biggest star of his time. Whether you loved him or hated him, when John McEnroe was on-court, it was hard not to watch.

4. Greg Norman

I think Greg Norman and John Daly are perhaps the two biggest golfing enigmas in modern times. They were two of the cleanest strikers of a golf ball in the modern era but had others factors derail what could have been.

In many ways, Daly was a throwback to what sport was like in the social or amateur era. He clearly lived a good life, enjoyed a drink and a smoke, was carrying a little extra weight and often looked like a man who had made his way to the golf course straight from lunch.

But ‘Long’ John Daly hit a mean ball. Not dissimilar to Adam Sandler in Happy Gilmore, his work off the tee was a sight to behold, but eventually his lifestyle caught up with him and like so many great sporting enigmas his success wasn’t sustainable, although he still won two majors which is testament to his natural gifts.

But if Daly’s problems were physical then Norman’s issues were psychological. I think there was a sense with Norman that he could sense panic from almost anywhere and I think his opponents knew it.

No lead was too big, no gap was too large, if the wheel started to turn and the contest started to get tight, particularly at big tournaments, you always felt that Norman could come undone because it happened more times than he would have liked.

Augusta ’96 was almost a snapshot of his disappointment at the majors and that period in golf in general because it featured perhaps the two primary actors of that era: Greg Norman and Nick Faldo and underlined the differences between both champions.

Norman was the more dominant golfer all year round for the vast majority of their careers and was ranked as the world number one for over 300 weeks, more than three times as long as Faldo.

But Nick Faldo appeared to have a calmness about him at the biggest moments that Greg Norman probably lacked, and in the end I think that’s the reason behind their different records at the majors. Faldo won six and Norman won two.

And on that fateful day at Augusta, there was almost a sense of inevitability that Faldo would get stronger as the tournament wore on and that Norman could come unstuck if the wheel began to turn.

And turn it did. Norman led for the first three days but there was an eleven stroke turnaround on the final day. After leading by six at the end of day three, he lost by five at the end of day four.

It was the greatest turnaround in the history of the Masters and over the course of those four days we would perhaps get an insight into his strengths and weaknesses as an athlete.

The analogy I would use is that he was a bit like Brett Favre as a quarterback: A great attacking, offensive, playmaking weapon that was almost impossible to stop when things were flowing but was just prone to making mistakes at the biggest moments.

Like Favre, Norman only seemed to know one way. He lived and died by the sword and very rarely reigned himself in. You often find that a lot of golfers, even the greatest golfers, will play conservatively and pull back a gear at the biggest moments but Norman kept going hard.

It’s what made him so exciting to watch but it’s also what made him vulnerable if things got tight. Because of the contrasting nature of those two paradigms, I think he was the hardest guy to stop when things were flowing but became the easiest guy to catch when things went south.

But Greg Norman’s legacy is also as much about what he did off the course as what he did on the course. He was really one of the first athletes to take ownership of his own personal brand. He changed the business model from athletes viewing themselves as employees to collaborative partners in the business process.

Some felt that he may have become distracted by his business interests and lost focus of his primary goal but I think that’s a slightly unfair criticism considering he was the world number one for over 300 weeks, second only to Tiger Woods in the history of the rankings.

The only real issue with Norman was that he just came up short when it really mattered. He finished with thirty top ten finishes at the majors but could only convert that into two victories.

But regardless of that, he was a highly entertaining golfer, probably the most watchable player of his era, a wonderful ball striker, and a very successful businessman who perhaps the laid the blueprint for athletes to follow.

But in the end, when it comes to Norman and Daly, a combined four major victories between them was probably not enough to justify their considerable talent, which is why for a lot of people they are game’s two biggest modern day enigmas.

5. Ayrton Senna

Ayrton Senna was the one who made Formula One cool. He transcended sport and became a popular culture icon. He also died young which means that much like James Dean his iconic image is frozen in time.

To be fair, I think most people agree that Senna was a better driver than Dean was an actor because one may well be the GOAT. If Ayrton Senna isn’t the greatest driver that ever lived, he is certainly in the conversation.

He is also the most famous and the most celebrated by some distance. But Senna’s iconic status in the world of motorsport has as much to do with his dazzling stagecraft as the races or titles that he won.

In terms of actual production, you could argue that both Michael Schumacher and Alain Prost were every bit as efficient. Prior to his death, Senna won three world titles while Prost won four and Schumacher seven. But Senna did it in a far more flamboyant manner.

He was a cross between Steve McQueen in The Great Escape and Tom Cruise in Top Gun. He just looked cool and with his chiselled looks and South American flair had that movie star aura about him. He was living the dream and he was the dream.

But growing up, I must admit that I was more of an Alain Prost fan than an Ayrton Senna fan, but I was clearly the outlier as Senna was the far more popular figure. But there was something about the cool, calm and calculated Prost that I always gravitated towards.

He really was ‘The Professor’ as he was called. He was as calculated and as studious as they come. He never seemed to get caught up in the adrenaline rush that is formula one racing but rather viewed his job through pragmatist glasses as one of strategically accumulating points.

It’s why he was never as popular as Senna. He just wasn’t as much fun to watch but he was my personal favourite. Prost was like Xavi or Iniesta: Everything he did was matter of fact and straight to the point. Senna was like Ronaldo or Ronaldinho: His ceiling was higher and he could do the impossible.

In fact, in the case of all three of them, a lot of the time it appeared like they didn’t have a ceiling and they could do whatever they wanted whenever they felt like doing it.

Senna had more of those transcendent moments that are etched into sporting folklore like Donnington in 1993 where he overtook four drivers in one lap to take the lead in treacherous conditions. It was the mark of his genius.

And this gets to the other point about Senna’s greatness. He was a master in the wet. In difficult conditions his class invariably shone through and as others struggled he only seemed to get stronger.

It’s hard to compare drivers from different eras but Senna had the mark of a genius that ensured he would have been great in any era. The other thing to consider is that technology has changed formula one racing and its now perhaps more about the car than the driver.

If you go back a generation or more, I think drivers had to multi-task a little bit more. Not only were they heavily involved in race tactics but also in the actual running of the car and were often forced to make in-car adjustments because a lot of it was on them and not so much the technology or the support crew.

You could argue that Senna did that better than anyone. He was sound tactically, often made adjustments on the fly and had multiple gears literally and figuratively, but was also known to push the envelope which is the one area where he often drew criticism.

Some felt that he crossed the line from brinksmanship and gamesmanship to reckless. He drove very close to the line, he was aggressive, he was fearless, but he was not flawless.

But perhaps Ayrton Senna came closer to achieving racing nirvana than anyone has ever done. The word genius is thrown around sporadically but there is enough evidence to suggest that Ayrton Senna had that unmistakable genius about him that separated him from the norm.

But you could certainly make the case that Prost was every bit as productive a driver without having half the charisma, which is why sporting greatness is often defined as much by how you do it as what you do.

To be fair, I think they are both rightfully acknowledged as being in the top five drivers of all time, but in the end Ayrton Senna had a star power and a charisma about him that turned him from a star of his sport into an international icon.

6. Barry Bonds

Barry Bonds was one of the greatest players in baseball history but Barry Bonds was also one of the most controversial figures in baseball history. I think most people are at least partially familiar with the Barry Bonds story.

On a global scale, while Babe Ruth is the game’s biggest name by some distance, in modern times I think most sports fans are at least mildly familiar with the work of guys like Bonds and Derek Jeter, probably the two biggest names of the last 25 years.

Jeter generally stayed above the fray and became something of a statesman for his sport but the unfortunate thing for Bonds is that his prodigious talent has now become overshadowed by controversy.

In an era that came to be associated with performance enhancing drugs, rightly or wrongly, his name is now one of the first associated with that period, but that only tells part of the story because it doesn’t cover his entire career which is why his legacy becomes complicated.

For those who don’t know the back story, many media commentators have speculated that Bonds, a highly strung individual, become less than impressed at the attention given to both Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa during their epic chase of Roger Maris’ home run record during the 1998 season.

For a player used to being the center of attention it reportedly didn’t sit so well and from that point on his own career becomes a little murky and clouded with suspicion. If that in fact was the case then he wouldn’t be the first guy who had it all but wanted more.

But this is why his legacy gets complicated. Barry Bonds started in 1986 and retired in 2007, so there is still a thirteen season sample size to work with up until the end of that ’98 season, and it has to be said that even if you stop his career then and there his body of work is still mightily impressive.

He won seven MVP awards throughout his career, the most of any player by some distance, three before ’98 and four after ’98. Along with Ken Griffey Jr. he was almost universally regarded as being the best player of the nineties.

Together, they won a combined eighteen gold glove awards and hit just short of a combined 1400 home runs. Junior was the far more popular figure but most people still regard Bonds as the slightly better player. The Barry Bonds of the nineties is already arguably a top ten player of all time.

But he was a polarizing character. A surly, brooding individual, he was often viewed as being difficult and hard to like by both the fans and media equally even though many may have admired his prodigious talents from afar.

But even those who didn’t like him personally will rarely challenge his greatness as a hitter. He was as good as it gets. His timing, his judgement, his discipline, his dominance were the equal of any to ever play the game. He had great hands, great bat speed, great hand-eye co-ordination and all of the things that make a great hitter.

The reason why you can’t dismiss Bonds’ career out of hand is because like batting in cricket, when it comes to batting greatness in baseball, while some of it is physical, a lot of it is mental.

Everyone who followed the sport agrees that Barry Bonds was one of the smartest players to ever walk onto a baseball field. He had great plate discipline; he could read the pitch as well as anyone, and he could control the game with his mind as much as intimidate with his bat.

I don’t know what the breakdown is but if you said that it’s a fifty-fifty split between mind and body I don’t think you would be too far off the mark. I think people who understand the sport agree that Bonds’ greatness had as much to do with his command of the game mentally as much as his body.

As an overall package, many believe that he is the greatest offensive player ever, was one of the finest fielders of his generation, and as an extension the greatest player, period, with perhaps only Babe Ruth or Willie Mays legitimately challenging him for the title.

Unfortunately his career has become clouded in controversy, and he has been something of a pariah for more than a decade, but I think the wheel may be starting to turn and it appears that baseball is now ready to welcome him back into the fold.

He recently served as hitting coach for the Miami Marlins and in 2017 he rejoined the San Francisco Giants as a special adviser to the CEO which is probably fitting for one of the greatest talents in baseball history.

7. Scottie Pippen

Michael Jordan’s right-hand man, Scottie Pippen, often polarised throughout his illustrious career. Some say he gets overrated because he got to play with Jordan while others say he gets underrated because he had to live in the shadow of Jordan.

In the end I think he get rated about right because it kind of l balances itself out. I almost went for Dennis Rodman who was perhaps was even more mysterious and harder to decipher but from a purely basketball point of view I think Pippen may well have been the greatest enigma of his generation because he divides opinion.

But just a quick word on Rodman, I think there is a general sense around the NBA that in the mid-nineties Rodman almost created a persona for himself and has been largely playing up to that persona ever since. I think most people understand that a lot of what he did was purely for theatre and should be taken in that context.

But while his off-court theatrics were an amusing part of his shtick, even his harshest critics rarely question his on-court value. He was quite phenomenal. He was Mr. One per cent.

He did all of the things on a basketball court that often go unnoticed and are often underappreciated but he did them all so well and so efficiently that when you add them all up it becomes overwhelming.

There is so much mythology around that Bulls team of the mid-to-late nineties largely because of the star power of Jordan but Pippen and Rodman were equally formidable in their own right and would form a devastating trio.

But in the end I think Pippen is the one who sometimes gets lost in the crowd because he was sort of caught between two worlds. I’ve heard some people suggest that Pippen’s role was interchangeable and that you could have swapped him for another wingman and Michael would have carried on his merry way, but I’m not quite so sure that I agree with that.

It might be true in terms of the skill-set that Pippen brought to the table but I’m not sure his mindset was as easy to replicate. I think Scottie Pippen played a very specific role and I think he played it to a tee.

Professional sports are rife with guys with big egos. Everyone wants the credit and everyone wants the limelight. Dynasties dismantle and teams get abandoned because not everyone can agree on their role and not everyone is content with their lot in life.

Scottie Pippen’s greatest gift to that Bulls team is that he never tried to overshadow Michael Jordan. He only ever tried to compliment him. I’m not sure how many others in that position would have been quite so willing to stay in their lane and play so selflessly for the team. Scottie Pippen did and that’s why the Bulls won six championships in eight years.

In that sense, he may well be the greatest right-hand man in sports history because I’m not sure anybody has played that role better. Probably the best equivalent in modern times would be Andres Iniesta’s role at Barcelona playing Robin to Lionel Messi’s Batman.

That’s a specialised role. You’re not the general: You’re the lieutenant general. But it still takes great discipline, great commitment and great understanding to go so willingly along with the script and be content to only play your role.

So I don’t agree that Pippen was easily interchangeable. You could make the argument that he wouldn’t be able to dominate a team by himself, and there is certainly an argument to that effect, but I think you have to acknowledge that Jordan’s life was made easier by having such a talented team-mate so eager and willing to go along with the cause.

For example, I sometimes wonder how many titles a guy like Hakeem Olajuwan would have won if he had Pippen as his running mate his entire career. I know they played that one season together at Houston but by that stage they were both well past their prime. Olajuwan was 35 and Pippen 33, coming off back surgery, was a shadow of his former self.

Had they played together from start to finish like Jordan and Pippen did I can see those two winning four or five chips together for the simple reason that I’m not sure anyone would score against them with Olajuwan guarding the paint and Pippen defending the perimeter. They were arguably the two best defensive players of their generation and certainly both in the top five.

You get the sense that Scottie sometimes feels like he doesn’t quite get the credit he deserves but I think everyone acknowledges his role in that great Bulls dynasty and I think it’s fair to say that the legend of Michael Jordan wouldn’t be quite as polished without Pippen doing his thing.

8. Brett Favre

If Ronaldinho was the world game’s ultimate freewheeling, happy go lucky maverick, then Brett Favre was his American equivalent. They were both showmen and both natural entertainers.

Along with Barry Sanders, I think Favre was the most watchable football player of the nineties. I said earlier that Ronaldinho played the game like he was still an eight year old in his mum’s backyard but Favre gave the exact same vibe.

He never lost that child-like enthusiasm or passion for the game but he was every bit as impulsive. Favre’s game was built on instinct. He was intuitive, he was exciting and everything was great except for one thing: He just rolled the dice once too often, often at the biggest moments and the most inappropriate times.

And I think that’s what would have driven his coaches crazy. I said it before with Norman that the greatest players will often pull back a gear and play within themselves with the game on the line but Favre just didn’t seem to have that filter. He very rarely reigned himself in and just ran with his natural instincts.

There’s a fine line between flair and reckless and it was almost like he had an unhealthy compulsion towards risk and just genuinely enjoyed rolling the dice and seeing what numbers would come up. But that was Brett Favre. That’s what made him so entertaining but I suspect that’s also what made him so infuriating if you were a fan.

But for a period in the mid-nineties, Brett Favre was arguably the best player in football. He won three consecutive MVP awards between 1995 and 1997, and played a significant role in really changing the direction of one of the sport’s most storied franchises.

Together with Reggie White, the Minister of Defense, one of the greatest defensive players of all time, and Mike Holmgren, one of the best offensive minds in football, he helped lead the Green Bay Packers to back to back Super Bowl appearances, winning one and losing one.

But that was when Favre was in his physical prime, and because he played such a high-risk / high reward type of game, I think it’s telling that even though he played for another thirteen years, he never actually made it back to the Super Bowl.

His game didn’t really seem to change all that much over the years and the player we saw at the end of his career was still very similar to the player we saw for the vast majority of his career.

He was lionised for his toughness, and rightfully so, making a record 297 consecutive regular season starts, which is quite a feat in such a high impact sport like football.

But there was one game at the end of his career with the Minnesota Vikings that almost seem to sum him up. He had a great season in 2009, and was as entertaining as ever, but in the conference championship game against the New Orleans saints he still found a way to blow a game that was there for the taking with an almost unbelievable interception.

If you were a fan of his, that one game almost took you through the entire gamut of emotions that encapsulated Brett Favre’s career. In the space of three hours, he could leave you spellbound by his toughness, his courage, his tenacity, his obvious skill, but still find a way to break your heart all in the same game, but in the end that was Brett Favre.

9. Brian Lara

Brian Lara played cricket like Ayrton Senna drove cars: He has magical, mercurial and hypnotic to watch. Like Senna, Lara lived life in the fast lane and his social calendar was as packed as his cricket schedule.

When you talk about the greatest cricketers of the last 25 years the names Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar are invariably right at the top of the list. For a lot of people those two came to embody cricket at its most tantalising and delicious.

While there were plenty of other great players, not least of all the two iconic spin bowlers of their time and maybe of any time, Warne and Murali, for a lot of people it was the two batting geniuses of the age that really stirred the soul.

But they were as different personally as they were brilliant collectively. Lara was an enigmatic genius who at times struggled with fame and everything that came with it. Tendulkar was a prodigy who dedicated his life to sporting excellence.

Lara had a higher ceiling; Tendulkar had a higher floor. Lara touched levels of genius that no one else did while Sachin achieved like no one else did. Like Jerry Rice in American Football, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in basketball, Tendulkar swamps you with numbers.

His greatness is largely tied to the fact that he batted longer and further than any man in history while mastering the craft of batting and perfecting a technique that could have been taken straight from the textbook.

Lara’s greatness is directly tied to the fact that he was the most brilliant guy in the room. He was a once in a generation artist who kept you captivated and spellbound by everything that he did. While Tendulkar was climbing Mount Everest, Lara was painting the Sistine Chapel.

Lara came from a long line of West Indian batting geniuses that included the likes of Sir Garfield Sobers and Sir Vivian Richards and carried on the tradition. The difference was that by the time he came around the West Indies were no longer a collective force and Lara was left to carry the can.

It wore him down and drew a wedge between him and cricket. For a time in the late nineties he lost his passion and lost his motivation but at the turn of the century he came back with vengeance and fulfilled his destiny. It was the second coming of the prodigal son and one the cricket world had been waiting for.

Sporting greatness is a complicated concept and very much in the eye of the beholder but Brian Lara gave me more enjoyment than any cricketer in modern times because he played the game the way it was meant to be played. He always looked to attack, he always looked to dominate, and he always looked to make something happen.

Tendulkar has the numbers but for artistry, sporting theatre at its most compelling and raw naked genius with the bat, for mine Brian Lara was the greatest and most watchable cricketer of the last 25 years.

10. Ronaldo

I almost went for Rivaldo who was equally enigmatic and equally brilliant but in the end I think the Brazilian Ronaldo is perhaps the biggest unanswered question in modern football.

While most people agree that along with Zinadine Zidane he was the best player of his own era, I think there is a sense that had he not got injured he would have seriously challenged for the title of the best player of any era.

What he did in those three or four years before he got injured was just out of this world. He ran at defenders at full speed and made them look like statues, went inside, went outside, went around you or just ran straight through you.

For a while there it didn’t matter what you did it just didn’t seem like anyone could lay a glove on him. Probably only Ronaldinho in his prime could match him for speed with the ball but Ronaldo was also one of the great finishes of any era. He was the complete striker. He had great range; great power, and was adept off either foot.

He was strong, he was tough, sublime with foot and supple of mind; but he was just so strong from the waist down that once he hit top gear he was almost impossible to stop. He was like a Sherman tank when he moved into overdrive and you just had to get out of the way.

I guess the one thing about Ronaldo is that he was a bit of a ‘mood’ player and didn’t always appear to be completely engaged. At times his fitness dropped, his weight ballooned, and towards the end of his career, while his mind and skills were always sharp, the explosiveness of youth was gone.

But his peak was out of this world. It’s a credit to him that he came back from injury and still remained a formidable force, even though he never quite reached the same dizzying heights, but in a highly decorated career he still strung together many years of sustained excellence.

He got it done in big games which also added to his legend. Along with Pele’, he is the only guy to win the golden ball and the silver ball at two different World Cups. Pele did it in 1958 and 1970, with Brazil winning both times, and Ronaldo did it in 1998 and 2002.

I have to say that 2002 World Cup, which Brazil won, the last great Brazilian team with Ronaldo, Rivaldo and Ronaldinho all in the same team together with Cafu and Roberto Carlos darting down the wings is still one of the most enjoyable tournaments that I can recall watching in recent times.

All icons of the game, and three of those guys were legitimately the best player in the world at one particular time, but I think there is a sense with Ronaldo in particular that had he not got injured he could have seriously pushed for the mantle of the best player of any time, not just the best player of his own time.

Nevertheless, at peak value, in my opinion he and Ronaldinho are still the two most exquisite, explosive and electrifying footballers of the modern era who could put on a show like few others and to borrow a line from Prince make you want to party like it’s 1999.

I think it’s fair to say that both Ronaldo and Ronaldinho did their fair share of partying off the field but still found the time to play some remarkable football on the field. They were both magicians and two of world sport’s great showmen and great characters.