CW Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition

[weeman27bob]

Sent.

 

[G.I.Joe]

interestingly though I just received a list that does not have Bradman among the top 25 cricketers of all time

Not even at #8? That's harsh.

I see smalishah_84 has signed up to the forum.

 

[Furball]

Problem GF is that we would have barely 30-40 voters at the end, this makes it possible for an individual to manipulate the outcome. If there were hundreds of voters, this problem wouldn't occur.

Anyways, I sent my list (and picked a list I honestly believe in). Why do you guys still use hotmail, btw?

I still don't see an issue. Provided people are being honest with their selections, if a couple of people make the list that you don't agree with, then you just have to accept that it's a representative list of everyone who's voted.

Otherwise, isn't it too easy to manipulate this list?

For example, I know Bradman will do well but I also want Kapil ahead of Botham in the list. I can simply place Kapil at no. 1 and throw Botham out of the 25. I personally don't think Kapil to be the best test cricketer ever, and I know that in spite of me rating him no. 1, he won't come out no. 1 in the final list - but it serves my purpose..

Look, if Kapil is important enough to you that he merits a number 1 vote, then vote that way. All this talk of manipulating lists just means people are likely to be put off voting for this because people attempting to manipulate lists make exercises like this a complete waste of time for everyone else. I've already been put off voting in this because I reckon one or two people in this thread are completely at it, which is a shame because stuff like this is fun and can generate good discussion.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I still don't see an issue. Provided people are being honest with their selections, if a couple of people make the list that you don't agree with, then you just have to accept that it's a representative list of everyone who's voted.



Look, if Kapil is important enough to you that he merits a number 1 vote, then vote that way. All this talk of manipulating lists just means people are likely to be put off voting for this because people attempting to manipulate lists make exercises like this a complete waste of time for everyone else. I've already been put off voting in this because I reckon one or two people in this thread are completely at it, which is a shame because stuff like this is fun and can generate good discussion.

This.

 

[weldone]

FTR it's just a quick fix that I suggested.

In fact, I think the best way to do these rankings is to conduct voting for no. 1, then conduct voting for no. 2 among the rest, and so on...there doesn't remain any scope for manipulation...

 

[smash84]

Not even at #8? That's harsh.

I see smalishah_84 has signed up to the forum.

that the_sean heist was pretty amazing tbh......

 

[weldone]

Look, if Kapil is important enough to you that he merits a number 1 vote, then vote that way. All this talk of manipulating lists just means people are likely to be put off voting for this because people attempting to manipulate lists make exercises like this a complete waste of time for everyone else. I've already been put off voting in this because I reckon one or two people in this thread are completely at it, which is a shame because stuff like this is fun and can generate good discussion.

What's your point?

If your point is 'people don't manipulate', I disagree.

If your point is 'people should not manipulate', I agree.

If your point is 'we should assume that people don't manipulate, and go ahead having blind faith in people', I disagree.

If your point is to teach me not to manipulate, don't bother - because I don't manipulate.

 

[smash84]

I still don't see an issue. Provided people are being honest with their selections, if a couple of people make the list that you don't agree with, then you just have to accept that it's a representative list of everyone who's voted.



Look, if Kapil is important enough to you that he merits a number 1 vote, then vote that way. All this talk of manipulating lists just means people are likely to be put off voting for this because people attempting to manipulate lists make exercises like this a complete waste of time for everyone else. I've already been put off voting in this because I reckon one or two people in this thread are completely at it, which is a shame because stuff like this is fun and can generate good discussion.

awta

FTR it's just a quick fix that I suggested.

In fact, I think the best way to do these rankings is to conduct voting for no. 1, then conduct voting for no. 2 among the rest, and so on...there doesn't remain any scope for manipulation...

awta but it is more fun this way and assuming everybody is honest in this we can have a similar list to what people would have voted for had they voted for each player individually

 

[weldone]

awta but it is more fun this way and assuming everybody is honest in this we can have a similar list to what people would have voted for had they voted for each player individually

Assuming everybody is honest is an insult to honest people.

Edit: BTW even if I don't fully agree with the methodology, don't think that I am discouraging you from the project - which should be fun if nothing else (and should yield correct results if your assumption of 'everybody is honest' comes true in this particular case accidentally).

 

[zaremba]

Golly, we're all taking this, and ourselves, a trifle seriously aren't we? Just because someone* voted for DR Jardine as their no.1 cricketer of all time, so that he snuck into the CW list at - gasp! - number 50, some people are getting their knickers in a most almighty twist.

"Manipulation! Dishonesty! What about the sanctity of our list?"

Give me a break.




* me

 

[weldone]

funny

 

[ankitj]

Golly, we're all taking this, and ourselves, a trifle seriously aren't we? Just because someone* voted for DR Jardine as their no.1 cricketer of all time, so that he snuck into the CW list at - gasp! - number 50, some people are getting their knickers in a most almighty twist.

"Manipulation! Dishonesty! What about the sanctity of our list?"

Give me a break.




* me

People are allowed to decide how strongly they feel about it, aren't they? I mean, if it was Harbhajan instead of Jardine, there will be no hue and cry you think?

 

[NUFAN]

I'm helping smali with the tallying up of points - so far I've worked out the scoring for the first 9 emails.

Some interesting results so far, keep the emails coming - cwtop50@hotmail.com

 

[Satguru]

Sent... but spent half an hour making a top 50 before i realised i needed only 25

 

[Himannv]

Sent. Probably missed out on some obvious names and on any given day may vote differently.

 

[Pothas]

Trying to find the list I did a couple of years back, top 5 not changed I don't think but have probably moved more to judging players on wider cultural impact and such things.

 

[Ikki]

I more or less gave the same list I gave to Sean. Some differences for e.g. Imran is some 5-6 spots higher. I hope the write-ups are good; Sean did an excellent job last time round.

 

[Furball]

People are allowed to decide how strongly they feel about it, aren't they? I mean, if it was Harbhajan instead of Jardine, there will be no hue and cry you think?

Who cares?

The only people kicking up a fuss were dullards like Pratters.

I'd have loved to see the reaction if I'd voted Gavin Hamilton number 1 instead of number 2 last time.

 

[Flem274*]

Awesome I will vote in Mike Mason

We have a winner.

 

[Flem274*]

To Smalishah,

1 peter ingram
2 michael mason
3 doug bracewell
4 kyle mills
5 jacques kallis

love anonamus.