CW Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition

[Flem274*]

Mine is probably going to be a quirky list, and because of the way I assess "cricketer" it will be dominated by allrounders and players who I feel have defined the game or added to it's charm.

One man in particular no one else will vote for but what he did made him in every essence a superb cricketer.

Oh, and someone will feature from CD on my list, because it's my ****ing list ****s.

 

[nsniks]

Sent

 

[Jager]

Oh wow, I am so keen for this. I'll do mine tonight, great idea!

 

[smash84]

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.

Let us hope I am equal to the task

To Smalishah,

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

love anonamus.

 

[zaremba]

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?

People can think what they want, indeed.

A CW list without any mischief wouldn't really be a proper reflection of what CW is about. Unless we are all here to be grimly self-important and to take ourselves a bit too seriously.

CW isn't Wisden.

 

[marc71178]

Any attempt at removing players is unnecessary censorship IMO and ensures the list doesn't end up as what it purports to be.

 

[Jager]

Sent, I definitely went in the 'overall contribution to cricket' direction.

 

[Jarquis]

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.

/discussion.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yes, GF clearly won this thread.

I'll send you a list tomorrow Smali, after I've had time to work one out.

 

[ankitj]

Yes, GF clearly won this thread.

I'll send you a list tomorrow Smali, after I've had time to work one out.

You are entitled to your opinion, but nothing is "clear", frankly. If you think people deliberately manipulate then putting in place a check (using minimum n votes as qualification) is a good idea? If you don't think people do that, they whey resist it at all? I wonder if people would have been on the same side of the debate if it was Ganguly instead of Jardine in the list last time around.

Anyways, Smali and Nufan will take a call on that. Won't discuss it endlessly.

 

[Pothas]

You are entitled to your opinion, but nothing is "clear", frankly. If you think people deliberately manipulate then putting in place a check (using minimum n votes as qualification) is a good idea? If you don't think people do that, they whey resist it at all? I wonder if people would have been on the same side of the debate if it was Ganguly instead of Jardine in the list last time around.

Anyways, Smali and Nufan will take a call on that. Won't discuss it endlessly.

You not read the whole not taking ourselves too seriously thing then?

'Manipulating' for gods sake.

 

[ankitj]

You not read the whole not taking ourselves too seriously thing then?

'Manipulating' for gods sake.

Yeah, I do take this seriously. So do many others I am sure. Sean wasn't putting in so much effort to write those wonderful write ups if no one was taking it seriously. You are just making an excuse.

 

[Howe_zat]

You are entitled to your opinion, but nothing is "clear", frankly. If you think people deliberately manipulate then putting in place a check (using minimum n votes as qualification) is a good idea? If you don't think people do that, they whey resist it at all? I wonder if people would have been on the same side of the debate if it was Ganguly instead of Jardine in the list last time around.

Anyways, Smali and Nufan will take a call on that. Won't discuss it endlessly.

Get your head out of your own arse and lighten up ffs. You're a better poster than to have a cry about this.

 

[Furball]

I'd like to hear a reason why Jardine is seemingly such a joke pick.

 

[Cabinet96]

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.

Well, you'll be able to see this time

 

[Agent Nationaux]

It's a bit of fun so I would agree with Mr Zaremba that we shouldn't be so serious about the scoring.

My list will be different because I don't know a lot of the old guys so they won't be in my list. Plus Younis will definitely get a higher rank than what most people will give him.

 

[marc71178]

I'd like to hear a reason why Jardine is seemingly such a joke pick.

Absolute legend IMO.

 

[kingkallis]

Hey bro, I have sent my Top 25

 

[Agent Nationaux]

OK, I have sent my top 25 (haven't included Younis).

 

[Fusion]

OK, I have sent my top 25 (haven't included Younis).

Why didn't you include Younis if you rate him?

Edit: List sent.