CW Ranks the Bowlers

[Michaelf7777777]

Grimmett
Hadlee

 

[DaRick]

1) Wasim Akram
2) Richard Hadlee

 

[BoyBrumby]

1) Waqar Younis
2) Fred Trueman

Can't whack a bit of sphincter-loosening pace.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Hadlee
Imran

 

[Pothas]

Warne
Trueman

 

[a massive zebra]

1. Murali
2. Hadlee

 

[stephen]

Warne
O'Reilly

 

[weldone]

1. Richard Hadlee
2. Muttiah Muralitharan

 

[Uppercut]

1. Warne
2. Trueman

 

[silentstriker]

1. Hadlee
2. Imran

 

[nightprowler10]

Wasim
Imran

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee
Imran

 

[indie2]

Marshall - 23
Barnes - 7
Murali – 2
Warne – 8
Ambrose – 1
McGrath – 7
Hadlee – 3
Wasim – 2
Lillee – 1
Wisden - 2


Marshall the number one apparently.

The strange thing about the voting pattern here is that although Warne was ranked second in the first round, suggesting he'd be a strong candidate to take the number 2 slot, here we are voting for number 5 and he still isn't getting the recognition.

Ambrose won the number 4 vote, but he was hardly on the same page as Warne in the first round voting.

Maybe it's easy to put Warne as a second choice, but there's some stigma about actually coming out and placing him first?

For what it's worth, Warne next, than Hadlee for me, but I'd love to understand the psychology that saw Warne picking up so many votes in the first round and still not getting chosen even when we get to number four...

 

[SJS]

The strange thing about the voting pattern here is that although Warne was ranked second in the first round, suggesting he'd be a strong candidate to take the number 2 slot, here we are voting for number 5 and he still isn't getting the recognition.

Ambrose won the number 4 vote, but he was hardly on the same page as Warne in the first round voting.

Maybe it's easy to put Warne as a second choice, but there's some stigma about actually coming out and placing him first?

For what it's worth, Warne next, than Hadlee for me, but I'd love to understand the psychology that saw Warne picking up so many votes in the first round and still not getting chosen even when we get to number four...

Its the same with batsmen really and I am perplexed.

Thats why I find this system of voting flawed. This allows for what I call strategic voting.

Its much better to follow the system followed by BBC when the voted for the five greatest cricketers of the century. They asked the judges to vote for the top five of their choice and then just added up the number of votes each player got and arrived at Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Richards, Warne (in that order.

We could have chosen a similar method. It is more representative and is not that much subject to manipulation.

 

[silentstriker]

The strange thing about the voting pattern here is that although Warne was ranked second in the first round, suggesting he'd be a strong candidate to take the number 2 slot, here we are voting for number 5 and he still isn't getting the recognition.

Well, Warne only got 8 votes, and I bet the people who thought he belonged that high kept voting for him all the way through and are still voting for him. People who didn't think he belonged that high haven't voted for him yet.

 

[Dissector]

Murali
Hadlee

Actually these are my votes for 1 and 2 but since they haven't been selected I will vote for them now. The deciding factor in both is that IMO it's substantially harder to carry an average attack on your own than to be part of a great attack as with most other great bowlers.

 

[adharcric]

Its the same with batsmen really and I am perplexed.

Thats why I find this system of voting flawed. This allows for what I call strategic voting.

Its much better to follow the system followed by BBC when the voted for the five greatest cricketers of the century. They asked the judges to vote for the top five of their choice and then just added up the number of votes each player got and arrived at Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Richards, Warne (in that order.

We could have chosen a similar method. It is more representative and is not that much subject to manipulation.

Even if that system is more accurate, it doesn't sound anywhere near as fun and probably wouldn't create as much debate as the one we're using. Really, strategic voting can be used with that system too - i.e., I know Warne's a threat to my top choices so I can leave him out of my list completely, even though he'd otherwise make it. I'm counting on the voters here being legitimate enough not to engage in strategic voting; I'm confident enough in most of them and even if they do vote strategically, it'll take more than just a few such votes to alter the list.

 

[silentstriker]

TBF to Grace, I don't pick only solely because I am not sure if he can fit into these rankings - same with all of the 19th century players. Purely compared to his contemporaries, he would be up there with Bradman as the best ever batsman of all time. So my not voting for Grace is not implying that I do not think him a great player, or anything like this.

Spinners on the other hand, yea, I don't think they are generally as a effective as fast bowlers all things considered. However, there have been some exceptional spin bowlers that have been as good as some really great fast bowlers, so I'll start voting for spin bowlers when I think it merits their inclusion, in terms of how good they are as pure bowlers. Most likely, I would start voting for a spinner around the #10 mark. I certainly think there have been a minimum of 7-8 fast bowlers better than the best spinner in the history of the game.

And I don't necessarily think the other system would be more accurate. It would reward a minority with a vastly differing opinion than a majority, I'd think. I don't believe any of my votes have been 'strategic'. I'll vote for Warne, and O'Reilly, and Murali and Underwood and Grimmett at the spot I think they belong.

 

[NUFAN]

1 Shane Warne
2 Joel Garner

 

[SJS]

Even if that system is more accurate, it doesn't sound anywhere near as fun and probably wouldn't create as much debate as the one we're using. Really, strategic voting can be used with that system too - i.e., I know Warne's a threat to my top choices so I can leave him out of my list completely, even though he'd otherwise make it. I'm counting on the voters here being legitimate enough not to engage in strategic voting; I'm confident enough in most of them and even if they do vote strategically, it'll take more than just a few such votes to alter the list.

You know my point was that we slightly modify that system adopted by Wisden/BBC. Not just name a list of players but rank them too. You may be right about fun but the whole idea of the poll is to get to know how people "actually" rate the greats. And if they are going to alter their votes just so as to get to get a player out, that may be fun but does it reflect their real choice ? Tough to say.

If we had to adopt this system then we should have stuck to one name every time a place is being filled.