• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

CW Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition

smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
Flem274* said:
Grace, Sobers, Hadlee, Imran and Sachin the ones most likely to be number one if Bradman isn't imo. Bradman will have suffered from lots of seconds to either favourite players or heroes of some countries. Following from that, the names I mentioned are absolute heroes of their nations so it is likely they will all have been given very high ratings by posters from those countries.

Then there are the smartarses who left Bradman off the list. There are bound to be a couple. The Australian contingent, unless they all put Peter Nevill at number one, should ensure Bradman wins though.

In saying that, Bradman was never a test standard bowler, so him losing out to someone who was half the batsman and a decent bowler wouldn't be an outrage, though I'm sure half the forum will disagree with me there.

The exercise is just a bit of fun though so it shouldn't matter. Would prefer a quirky list this time around tbf. Gives it some character that most other lists lack, because you can always predict the top three.
Click to expand...
You will be surprised at the results mate is all I will say at this point in time
 
P

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Can't remember where he was, he was in my top 20 this time around so by stupidly high I mean top 5.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
****, I think I might have forgotten Larwood. I got the other half of the English **** brigade as well (not GIMH). Flem WAC.
 
P

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Lol, rules invented by yourself.

Really wanted to fit him in but missed out by about 1 spot.
 
Hurricane

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
Pothas said:
Lol, rules invented by yourself.

Really wanted to fit him in but missed out by about 1 spot.
Click to expand...
Nah mate a number of people wanted that rule myself included. I personally think Miandad deserved to be on the list more than Larwood anyway because more people voted for him. This exercise has uncovered an interesting theoretical constraint on voting systems called intensity of preferences. Some people believe a voting system should allow for them - ie if a person votes Larwood number 1 this should count more than 17 people voting Miandad number 25. Some people don't believe in intensity of preference such as our electoral voting system where you can only vote once against the government no matter how much you hate them.

We have instituted a rule here that balances intensity of preferences with a traditional voting system by placing a cap of 4 votes to be included. This cap is more important when you consider players in the 40-50 range where their scores can be swung widely by someone's intensity of preference.

Coles 'Notes version: Smiley didn't invent this by himself.
 
weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Yes, also fair play to Smali because he declared the rules in the beginning. People are always going to whinge about this rule and that, but I don't see a grave problem as long as rules are the same for all cricketers / voters.
 
Last edited:
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
Who ****ing cares? You lot entered lists knowing Smali and friends decided the process. If you don't like it, don't vote. If Larwood isn't on the list but Andrew Symonds is, Symonds will not automatically become remembered as a better cricketer. This isn't Wisden ffs, the world will not be revealed to indeed be flat if the list has an unorthodox order.

It's a bit of fun. No one ****ing cares in the long run who beats who. What the will remember is the Bradman prank from the first one and the Michael Mason conspiracy in this one (I know you voted Hurricane.) Lighten up, have a pretzel and call Smali a **** when Kallis wins this thing.

And just so you all know, my number one was Doug Bracewell and Bradman and Sachin were left off. Apart from that the list was serious. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Flem274* said:
Who ****ing cares? You lot entered lists knowing Smali and friends decided the process. If you don't like it, don't vote. If Larwood isn't on the list but Andrew Symonds is, Symonds will not automatically become remembered as a better cricketer. This isn't Wisden ffs, the world will not be revealed to indeed be flat if the list has an unorthodox order.

It's a bit of fun. No one ****ing cares in the long run who beats who. What the will remember is the Bradman prank from the first one and the Michael Mason conspiracy in this one (I know you voted Hurricane.) Lighten up, have a pretzel and call Smali a **** when Kallis wins this thing.

And just so you all know, my number one was Doug Bracewell and Bradman and Sachin were left off. Apart from that the list was serious. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
Zip it, ****.
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
Pothas said:
Lol, rules invented by yourself.
.
Click to expand...
Eds said:
Always makes me laugh when people say this about their own rules.
Click to expand...
Someone had to invent the rules

Hurricane put it quite articulately regarding intensity of preferences.

This rule was actually proposed by one of the other members and I (and a number of other members) felt that this would be beneficial (and I still believe it is especially after seeing some of the lists that we received).
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
Flem274* said:
Who ****ing cares? You lot entered lists knowing Smali and friends decided the process. If you don't like it, don't vote. If Larwood isn't on the list but Andrew Symonds is, Symonds will not automatically become remembered as a better cricketer. This isn't Wisden ffs, the world will not be revealed to indeed be flat if the list has an unorthodox order.

It's a bit of fun. No one ****ing cares in the long run who beats who. What the will remember is the Bradman prank from the first one and the Michael Mason conspiracy in this one (I know you voted Hurricane.) Lighten up, have a pretzel and call Smali a **** when Kallis wins this thing.

And just so you all know, my number one was Doug Bracewell and Bradman and Sachin were left off. Apart from that the list was serious. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
haha....thanks for the vote of confidence Flem
 
weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
smalishah84 said:
Someone had to invent the rules

Hurricane put it quite articulately regarding intensity of preferences.

This rule was actually proposed by one of the other members and I (and a number of other members) felt that this would be beneficial (and I still believe it is especially after seeing some of the lists that we received).
Click to expand...
Smali, after it's all done can you please PM me the imaginary list of 50 it would've been if my initial proposal about rules was considered? (remember? total points multiplied by total votes)...It's just that I'm interested to see how the list would look like...

Edit: Or if NUFAN can...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top