Neat See it here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/2005/07/01/revolutionary/content.4.html
I'm curious as to the "negative connotations of women and sport" to which the article refers. I'd still pick Akers as my first draft choice over Hamm. Hamm is a revolutionary according to SI even though Akers is the greatest women's player ever. Interesting thought.
Hamm took responsibility for growing the sport during a time when it was in the spot light. I'd take a healthy Akers first too and I think real hard about Lil being my first pick.
when Mia is honoured of something, Akers is automaticaly honoured as well, there is some kind of silent respect goin' on there
Akers was one tuff *********. She had Cronic-Fatigue Syndrome and still was able to kick ********* on the field. But Hamm was the player that brought soccer into the mainstream for both male and female sides; that is what made her "Revolutionary."
Although one of the greats, I don't think Hamm was any more revolutionary on the pitch than, say, Akers or Lilly. It was her contract with Nike and their subsequent marketing of her that made her 'revolutionary' and the face of women's soccer.
I believe you're correct, along with her scoring more goals than any man or woman in the world, she was just all marketing.
Hamm is probably the best forward the US has had, and should have more goals than Akers and Lilly because they were largely midfielders. Lilly is probably the best winger the US has had and has the caps record. Akers is probably the best player the US has ever had, period. They each brought something about equally major to the table, yet Hamm is a household name (and was before she even scored #100) and no one outside those who follow the sport closely has even heard of Lilly or Akers. Hamm certainly deserves as much credit as the other two, but can you seriously suggest that on playing merits alone that most of the general public would know who Hamm is while hardly anyone knows who Akers or Lilly are? That is due to Nike. The same thing is happening with Freddy Adu, and he's just starting out and hasn't even been capped yet.
This is not really accurate. Akers played at forward for the first 10 years of her USWNT career, and during much of that time was the USA's dominant striker and go-to player. During her early years on the team (including the 1991 WWC) Hamm played primarily at right midfield, and since has spent some (though limited) time as an attacking center mid. A better argument might be that Akers has fewer caps than Hamm, and actually has a better goals-to-games-played ratio. The counter argument to this is that Hamm was dominant during an era of greater parity in international play, and also that her career assists dwarf those of Akers. Sorry to just jump in- I'm new, but I'm assuming this has been discussed before and I'm kind of surprised that these kind of arguments carry weight around here. I know it's an unpopular stance, but I think an argument can be made either way as to the greatest player. Personally, I consider it apples and oranges and rather pointless to compare such different players, or to try to quantify their respective impacts by statistics, or to penalize Hamm because she's famous and has endorsement deals.
Good first post. But my general point still stands, even though one can make an argument that Hamm is the best player in USWNT history (though I and many others will still take Akers), she's not so much better than Akers or Lil that she should get the notoriety she has while the other two go virtually unknown to the general public on that basis alone. That's where the Nike sponsorship launched her to the very top of public recognition.
Your point is certainly valid. The chasm between the levels of fame isn't supported by an inequality of talent or achievement. But, to be fair, I would say that the issue isn't that Hamm has received too much attention, moreso that the others haven't received enough. It can be really frustrating, and thus the inevitable backlash. It's that publicity, though, that brought women's soccer to the masses and enabled Hamm to reconfigure the public's idea of a sports superstar, which is perhaps what leads SI to single her out as "revolutionary." Specifically, the reference isn't that what she achieved on the field wasn't so much (or at all) greater than some others but that her playing in addition to what she was able to do with fame is what singled her out. I don't consider Hamm's inclusion in the list to be a slam on the others. Oh, and thanks for the welcome, guys.
I know we don't always agree, but on this one for the most part we do -- we'd both pick Akers first. One can make an argument for Hamm but it is a weak one. No matter where on the pitch she played, Akers was the best ever at her position, acknowledged as such when she played and when she retired. Hamm was never considered the best right midfielder before she became a forward (just ask those who played against Hege Riise). You are right that Hamm's sponsorships gained her more recognition than either Akers or Lilly. Hamm was a great player and worthy of endorsement deals. But she had an advantage in gaining sponsorships. When Hamm started to get sponsored (remember Pert shampoo, a popular commercial long before Nike and Gatorade put her on TV), Akers was not seeking endorsement deals. Because of her Epson-Barr illness, she stopped doing most commercial appearances. I'm not saying that Hamm should have passed up deals because Akers wasn't doing them. But it does make one wonder who would have garnered the deals had Akers remained healthy. After all, even by 1996, I'm not sure that Mia out-endorsed everyone by the miles she later did. If you go back and check who did ads right after the 1996 Olympics, Foudy got quite a few commercials, and the Nike ad featuring Michael Johnson, Lisa Leslie and Gabriella Reece also featured Brandi Chastain, not Mia Hamm. My discussions with people involved in the USWNT before 1994 indicate that Akers was in many ways the public face of the team back then (and had more endorsement deals than anyone). Had she stayed healthy, it is not unimagineable that she would have continued to garner more deals than Hamm and been a more recognizable figure. Speculation aside, Hamm was the public face and fulfilled the role honorably. I'm not surprised SI chose her over Akers. In many respects, Hamm has become a legend. I have lost track of how many times in discussing the USWNT with general sports fans I have been told how they remember Mia Hamm taking off her jersey after scoring the winning goal. I have the tape, and that's not what my tape shows. But such are legends.
Sorry Awe, and no disrepect to Akers, but there's no way you'd see her doing a pert commercial, or much else in the way of Mia-like endorsements, even if she had stayed healthy. Mia had the face, Mitch did not. Mitch was what the stereotypical female athlete was supposed to look like. Mia was an enigma. Post WWC 99 Mitch's appeal heightened due to the publicity over her battle with illnesses. This could or should have translated to endorsements, but it did not. The appeal of Hamm was this: a beautiful egoless woman who also kicked ass on the pitch. This combination was the facination of Hamm. As for who was "the best?" Well in terms of domination, certainly Akers. Who knows what she could have done had she stayed healthy? But along with her disease, Mitch's all out fearless physical play contributed to her shortened career. Hamm's contribution was of another sort and cannot be discounted simply because she was a different type of player. In her prime, there was no one more exciting to watch on the pitch. It is apples and oranges, as someone else said, but the nod to Hamm is explainable because she was an awesome ambassador for the game. She was given more opportunity because of her face and her accomplishments, but she rose to the occassion and bore the spotlight with patience and humility. That too was refreshing and attractive, considering the behavior of many famous athletes.
I know this is all mere opinion and mine is simply this. Mia walked away from the field pretty much able to do it all. She walked away as the complete package. while in the early to mid 90's Akers may have been the dominant player I think Mia became the same. experience has a tendency to do that. But; while other players of Mia's same age range are still to a degree one dimentional. Mia was never satisfied with that and continued to evolve. to end ones career with almost as many assists as goals is a testiment to her ballance as a player. To be able to perform almost every task there is on the field is remarkable. I agree that it IS apples and oranges in many respects. Akers was a bruiser. She was a big physical player and in many ways those eliments of her game probably had as much to do with her career coming to an end as her illness did. Mia could never be expected to play the game in the same way Akers did. Akers had about an extra 7 inches on Mia, Mia was a relatively speaking much smaller player. Thus Mia's game was and had to be very different from that of akers. Mia game was a Finesse game. and no one did it better. No one screwed defenders into the ground with their moves the way that mia did. You can say that the endorsments had everything to do with the face but i would argue that without the talent without her ability to excite fans whether at the game or watching on T.V. attractive or not the deals would not have come her way. Her personality, her Humility, her intensity and in many ways her intreverted nature made her interesting as a person and collectively made her the player she evolved into. I respect Akers and always have. I take nothing at all away from her. In the same Vain Mia deserves the praise she has recieved as well. Fact is 5 years removed from Akers retirment from the game and her name still comes up in conversation.....that is a testiment to her longevity and face recognition and likely the same will be said 5 years down the road for Mia as well. there are some players that will not fade over time. much as pele's name is still spoken with regularity even though he has been retired for far longer. A legend is a legend is a legend. why they are or how they became so years down the road will be guessed at and people will offer their opinions as they do now. you will have some in one camp and some in another. In the end I think it is merely a matter of taste. Some like the bruisers, those physical players. and others like finesse players. In the end there is no right or wrong. there is only the differences between the two.