CW Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition

[NUFAN]

lol....WAC....go and read post # 160

I go to sleep and Miandad isn't in the 50, wake up and your fav sneaks into 50th, what do you expect. Jokes.

I can do that. Do you have the whole thing in excel?

Yeah it's an excel. I had a simple formula in place for the first 53 people or so, not sure if it's still in complete formula..

Smali - when will the next 10 be up approx?

 

[ankitj]

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...

Use that and start edition 3 immediately after this.

 

[silentstriker]

That suggests he had a fairly high score so excluding him is dishonest.

Unless he made the rule specifically to exclude Larwood - how is it dishonest? It's him deciding what the criteria for ranking should be....

 

[Pothas]

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.

I think we all know it is a bit of fun, in fact if you look back most people who argued against the rule, did so for that very reason.

Don't really have a problem with the rule just find it amusing when Smali mentions undeserving names that missed out because of it.

 

[Flem274*]

I just like a good yell tbh.

That and I wanted the thread to get back to guessing who is left out.

 

[Cabinet96]

Kallis going to be stupidly high isn't he?

I think he'll be higher than he was last time.

Can't remember where he was, he was in my top 20 this time around so by stupidly high I mean top 5.

Really doubt he'll be in the top 10 let alone top 5.

 

[ankitj]

I fought with some cognitive dissonance to put Kallis much higher than I normally do.

 

[marc71178]

Unless he made the rule specifically to exclude Larwood - how is it dishonest? It's him deciding what the criteria for ranking should be....

Well it claims to reflect CW opinion then excludes it.

The complaints last time were because 1 person voted a player top and it got them in the list.

As Larwood would've got 49 points, that's at least 2 people and more likely 3 voted for him.

Out of 57 that's a fair old percentage.

 

[fredfertang]

If Larwood is absent then afaic this poll has no credibility

 

[ankitj]

It's time Smali posts the next set of CW50.

 

[Fusion]

It's time Smali posts the next set of CW50.

I think it's better to skip the weekend IMO.

 

[Cabinet96]

I think Smali's slacking off IMO.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Nah do it daily. Want to know the full 50.

 

[salman85]

If Imran Khan doesn't win this,i will stop posting on cricketweb.

 

[ankitj]

If Imran Khan doesn't win this,i will stop posting on cricketweb.

Is that a promise?

 

[Burgey]

If Imran Khan doesn't win this,i will stop posting on cricketweb.

****, what was once a fun exercise has now taken on such significance for us all.

 

[Cabinet96]

Bye Salman...

 

[salman85]

Smalisah will spotfix this poll.Mark my words.

 

[ankitj]

****, what was once a fun exercise has now taken on such significance for us all.

Why so serious? Salman was obviously joking there. And the joke was on Smali as his next post suggests.

 

[Burgey]

Woooooooossssshhhhhhhh