Take away the video recordings and come back after a hundred years and read what youngsters on the net are saying about how great Lara and Sachin, Warne and Murali were in our times. The accusations of bias and glorifications of the past have always been there and will always be not and not just in cricket.
There is no way one can prove or disprove what is said of the past. We are at liberty to deny everything but remember we are as much likely to be biased in our times as people from any other era. There is neither any scientific basis nor any logical reasoning to say that people of one era are more biased than the other.
Biased people have always existed still do and always will.
Woodcock's list is not the only one that is challenged. Bradman's was too as was Benaud's and as is Warme's most recently.
I am not here to say one or two or all three of them were biased. How do I know? They say it is their opinion and I should learn to respect it as their opinion. They are not offering it as 'my' (sjs's) opinion let alone that of everyone in the world so what can I say.
We are trying to make a list of the greatest cricketers of OUR times on this forum. Our times mind you which we have all seen (or most of us) and how much do we agree?
Only one, JUST ONE, cricketer has so far been named by everyone in the 15 listed by 35 odd people who have voted so far ! Really.
We scream from roof tops about Lara, Sachin, and McGrath being amongst the greatest of all time and almost unanimous that Warne is the greatest leg spinner and yet we dont all rate them even in the top 15 of the last 15 years !!
Bias? Maybe - if you say so. Afterall it is your opinion not mine.
For me what I can take is that of the 55 cricketers named by 35 members of this forum, 8 have over 30 votes and another 8 have between 10 and 30. That should show me what the larger public opinion here is. There are 29 names of people with just one nomination. I can discard them or accept them. Many of them could be good enough to be someone's number 15 or so. I personally dont think it is 'necessarily' bias and definitely not a joke. But when someone gets just one nomination and that too of rank number one -the greatest cricketer of our times- I may ask myself if the person nominating was objective and/or serious.
The fact is that most people take these jobs seriously. However. that alone does not guarantee satisfaction and agreement by all concerned. How can we talk of objectivity in an excercise which has no truly objective criteria? That is why almost ALL list's are first explained by the writers as being their opinions and that it was very difficult for them to leave out so and so etc since finally only so many can be included.
Of course there is an element of bias/conditioning and what have you. Why else would it be called "So-and-So's List" ? It is there in every thing we do. That is why one doesnt take the word of just one or two people.
When Fingleton writes about Bradman in less than the glowing terms we are so used to we dont condemn Bradman's batting (though their ARE a small minority who will). Some feel may be he was biased. Maybe, I dont know..if you do you are far far brighter than I can ever dream to be.
Do I treat what he says as a joke? Of course I dont. Infact, I read everything he says about Bradman. I love reading it. It teaches a lot about Bradman, about his times, about the game and about the people and the personalities involved.
BUT, if I call Fingleton's opinion of Bradman a joke or Bradman's about Grimmett not deserving the place he was denied or Bradman's refusal to talk in anything but mild terms about how great a bowler Larwood was. Because if I do, it is I who appears ridiculous not Bradman's opinion or that of Fingleton. If they dont know what they are talking about (maybe they dont) surely I cant claim to know better let alone use disparaging language about their opinions. Of course I can say I have a different opinion but to call their lista joke? I am too small for that.
As far as statistics go.
Well we have a left handed batsman from Australia who till recently was the holder of one of the most 'valued' test records. He still holds it as an Australian record. He was also one of the best captains/leaders of our times and an exceptionally brilliant fielder. People have fought over his place in the list of the greatest left handed batsmen of all times and here , on this forum, and yet only three have rated him amongst their top 15 of modern day cricket ! Of these three two rated him number 15 in their list !!
Statistics. Can you argue with 11500 odd test runs and an average over 50 and 156 test catches not to mention his test captaincy? Maybe you can.
Are 32 people biased ? I dont know.
Is the non selection of Border a joke . of course not.
