The CW 50 - CricketWeb's view of the top 50 cricketers of all time

[The Sean]

Coming out of discussion in another thread, as well as numerous previous discussions down the years, I've always thought it would be a really interesting exercise if CW conducted a study much like the one ESPN did a few years back to rank the top 50 cricketers ever. I personally think that CW is the most knowledgeable cricket forum on the web and so I'd like to think that such an exercise on these pages would therefore carry considerable credibility, as well as being a bit of fun. It's the kind of thing I'd see as a significant endeavour and would rely on those taking part to actually put a decent amount of thought into their selections.

Obviously, though, doing this kind of thing is pointless if only a handful of people would vote - we'd need a fairly large sample of the CW population to take part to make it worthwhile - so what I'm keen to do is to float the idea and gauge interest. I know there are some of you out there who don't like getting involved in player rankings and there are others who are happy to rank players but only those they've seen. Both of those views are fair enough but they do mean a no-go for this kind of exercise.

So please post here if you're a) interested or b) have any thoughts - if we can get this moving sooner rather than later I thought it might be good to position it for a countdown perhaps in the lead up to Christmas.

Yours in cricket
Sean

 

[Pothas]

I am a little dubious when it comes to list but normaly take some kind of interest, the problem is that they ALWAYS come down to statistical debates and the same old arguments, would would be interesting is a list devoid of statistical analysis which looks at the way in which 'greatest' players are considerd that for the cultural impact they had, what the meant at the time and how they fit into the history of the game.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Sounds very interesting.

An idea might be for everyone who's game to vote for the best 5 or 10 players (dependent on uptake) in their estimations with points awarded accordingly (5 or 10 for #1 down to 1 for 5th or 10th).

 

[The Sean]

I am a little dubious when it comes to list but normaly take some kind of interest, the problem is that they ALWAYS come down to statistical debates and the same old arguments, would would be interesting is a list devoid of statistical analysis which looks at the way in which 'greatest' players are considerd that for the cultural impact they had, what the meant at the time and how they fit into the history of the game.

Ah well that's the thing - I wouldn't see it as a player vs player or position by position debate. I would see it the same way as the ESPN study, where everyone simply devised their own rankings, sent them to me, and I collated the overall rankings into a final consolidated list. That way everyone would make their selections independently before I revealed the final rankings.

 

[Langeveldt]

Can we get some cliched classical musical wallpaper going and me spouting stuff like "Marvellous" and "On top of his game" about Allan Donald..

 

[The Sean]

Sounds very interesting.

An idea might be for everyone who's game to vote for the best 5 or 10 players (dependent on uptake) in their estimations with points awarded accordingly (5 or 10 for #1 down to 1 for 5th or 10th).

Yep, that's precisely how I'd like it to be done. Though to be honest I'd actually like it if people were prepared to put in the effort for even a top 20 or 25, so as to comfortably fill out an overall top 50. I reckon if people are only voting for a top 10 then we might get a more limited selection.

 

[The Sean]

Can we get some cliched classical musical wallpaper going and me spouting stuff like "Marvellous" and "On top of his game" about Allan Donald..

Happy to consider it if it means you'll be a part of the exercise.

 

[Langeveldt]

Happy to consider it if it means you'll be a part of the exercise.

Would there be much time commitment? I'm moving around for a week or so

 

[The Sean]

Would there be much time commitment? I'm moving around for a week or so

It will take as much time as it takes you to develop your list of the top 20ish cricketers of all time and to send it to me.

 

[Pothas]

Can we get some cliched classical musical wallpaper going and me spouting stuff like "Marvellous" and "On top of his game" about Allan Donald..

I watched hours of those ESP profile things on a flight from Perth to London, was utterly mind numbing after a while and every player was the greatest player ever seen and his influence was so great that without him there would not even be cricket anymore.

 

[JBMAC]

Good idea Sean. how do we get it to you?

 

[The Sean]

Good idea Sean. how do we get it to you?

Thanks mate. You'll find my email at the bottom of my first post. I'm not yet asking for votes as we haven't yet worked out exactly how many players I'll be asking for on each person's list!

But don't let that stop you if you want to contribute now - the most I'll be asking for is a top 25, and so if you want to email me now do it with a top 25. If we end up settling for say a top 20 then I'll just take your top 20 ranked players.

 

[Goughy]

25 may be too many in my opinion. Cant say there would be too much difference between number 25 and 30 on my list.

 

[Langeveldt]

I watched hours of those ESP profile things on a flight from Perth to London, was utterly mind numbing after a while and every player was the greatest player ever seen and his influence was so great that without him there would not even be cricket anymore.

How many times do you hear "Sadly, Botham/Donald/Lillee/Hadlee played no further part in that series",

 

[The Sean]

25 may be too many in my opinion. Cant say there would be too much difference between number 25 and 30 on my list.

Yeah, was thinking people might consider 25 to be too many. I don't think I'd want less than 20 though TBH. Given that there are a number of locks who everyone or nearly everyone will pick, I think limiting the selections to 10 would severely hinder diversity of selection.

 

[morgieb]

Interesting. Will compete, as I'm awesome and want to show off my awesome cricketing knowledge.

 

[NUFAN]

I love this sort of thing. We should get Bert Newton to host it on prime TV, CW's 50 to 1 best cricketers ever.

I don't get why you've put a limit of 25 players though for anyone to pick? Why can't I pick 50 because part of the fun for me is to check how many in my top 50 makes the list.

 

[The Sean]

I love this sort of thing. We should get Bert Newton to host it on prime TV, CW's 50 to 1 best cricketers ever.

I don't get why you've put a limit of 25 players though for anyone to pick? Why can't I pick 50 because part of the fun for me is to check how many in my top 50 makes the list.

I would love it to be 50 actually - the more the better! The problem I felt was that most people wouldn't be bothered taking part if they had to list 50, and in order to tally the scores accurately we need to have a standardised number.

 

[vic_orthdox]

What about doing it in the same way that we did the top 25 batsmen and bowlers. Vote for each position accordingly as we go through it all?

 

[Athlai]

What about doing the top 20-25 on CW via votes (which would get the Bradmans, Tendulkars, Warnes etc. out of it and then everyone does a list for the next 25?