CW Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition

[silentstriker]

Predicted this sort of thing (i.e. Warne not being in people's top 10), so compensated with my own omissions. Hopefully will balance this sort of thing out.

Warne wouldn't be in my top ten all time but that's my legitimate view.

 

[Fusion]

It's so bloody simple though ffs.

The title says "CW's Top 50 cricketers of all time."

Not "CW's Top 50 cricketers that will piss off Burgey."
Not "CW's Top 50 cricketers that Ikki likes."
Not "CW's Top 50 non-Indian or non-Australian cricketers."

My hope was that we would get a genuine cross-section of cricketing viewpoints in CW according to what people actually believe. If it turns up some odd surprises, cool! That's the whole point, and if it does turn out that CW as a group genuinely rates Imran > Sobers or Tendulkar > Bradman or whatever it is (key word: genuinely), then it provides an interesting point of discussion as to the rationale, the logic etc etc etc behind it.

But if people are going to just go "lol I won't vote for Bradman because it'll piss off Burgey and it'll be funniez if he doesn't top it" or "lol I won't vote for Sachin because it'll piss off the fanboys"... well, people are free to vote however they like, but if I'd have known that beforehand, as I said, I wouldn't have submitted.

I hope I'm wrong.

I have never understood the purpose of "strategic voting" on here. With all due respect, this is just a cricket forum and really who cares if Bradman, Tendulkar, or Imran are thought of as the greatest cricketers ever here? It's just a bit of fun and it won't change the actual players' legacies one bit.

come on guys.....cheer up......the list is pretty good..........at least let the whole thing finish before taking premature jabs at people's trustworthiness or intellectual dishonesty etc etc

True, we should reserve judgment until the whole list is out. Post the next batch already!

 

[Spark]

I just don't understand "tactical" or "strategic" voting at all. Really don't. Don't like how it's turning out? Then don't submit IMO.

 

[weldone]

...With all due respect, this is just a cricket forum and really who cares if Bradman, Tendulkar, or Imran are thought of as the greatest cricketers alive here?...

I shall care (or should I say 'worry'?) a little if Bradman is thought of as 'alive' here TBH...

 

[Spark]

I shall care (or should I say 'worry'?) a little if Bradman is thought of as 'alive' here TBH...

Zombie Bradman tbh

 

[chris.hinton]

Just has a sidetrack here is my top 10 from 1990s to present day

1) Shane Warne
2) Curtly Ambrose
3) Sachin Tendulkar
4) Brian Lara
5) Glenn McGrath
6) Adam Gilchrist
7) Rahal Dravid
8) Matt Hayden
9) Courtney Walsh
10) Wasim Akram

 

[Fusion]

I shall care (or should I say 'worry'?) a little if Bradman is thought of as 'alive' here TBH...

Zombie Bradman tbh

Damn you ****s. I almost immediately went back to edit my post, but not fast enough for you! Zombie Bradman would be awesome though.

 

[sledger]

Warne wouldn't be in my top ten all time but that's my legitimate view.

Was being facetious tbh. Appreciate he might not be in everyone's top ten, but get the feeling that he'd be deliberately left out of various people's lists altogether to distort the result. Conjecture on my part though I suppose. Don't much care either way.

 

[Jono]

I just don't understand "tactical" or "strategic" voting at all. Really don't. Don't like how it's turning out? Then don't submit IMO.

It's laughable how pathetic iti s, and the people doing it need to get a life. That includes the people tactically voting to fight the tactically voting, because that means tactically voting pisses them off so much that they will do it themselves.

I mean Ikki calling for a public exposing of everyone's votes was Talk about taking a cricket forum exercise too seriously.

 

[smash84]

Zombie Bradman would be awesome though.

It would be a horror classic

 

[Prince EWS]

Was being facetious tbh. Appreciate he might not be in everyone's top ten, but get the feeling that he'd be deliberately left out of various people's lists altogether to distort the result. Conjecture on my part though I suppose. Don't much care either way.

I reckon Bradman and Tendulkar will both suffer in this from people trying to funny and submitting completely serious and conventional lists bar the omission of one or both of them.

If you actually think Tendulkar and/or Bradman aren't worthy of being in cricket's top 25 and you omit them, that's fine, and that's what this exercise is about... but I don't think anyone here who left them off would actually fall into that category. People are going to manipulate, and I think more relevantly people are just going to troll with stuff like that because they think it's funny to vote Mohammad Ashraful in Bradman's place and give everyone below him a few points to catch up with.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ikki's posts about Warne are seriously weird though. I get that he rates Warne really, really highly, but is people not thinking Warne is one of the greatest twenty five cricketers ever really that new an experience for him? I absolutely love Warney and he snuck in at #23 for me; certainly no bias against him from me and I almost left him off. I'm sure most if not all people who omitted Warne altogether did so legitimately; he doesn't seem like someone you'd leave off to troll to me.

 

[Jono]

Ikki is just completely obsessed with Warne. In an unhealthy way.

I'm glad I don't have an unhealthy obsession with a player, it really isn't a good thing to constantly bring up a player over and over again.

 

[The Sean]

I'm thinking (hoping?) there will be a lot less tactical voting than people think there will, based on last time at least. A couple of people sent in "unconventional" lists in the previous exercise and one or two did even leave Bradman off completely, but this was down to them having specific and personal criteria for what greatness meant to them, which is entirely fair enough. I honestly don't recall any obvious tactical voting.

 

[Cevno]

Ikki is just completely obsessed with Warne. In an unhealthy way.

I'm glad I don't have an unhealthy obsession with a player, it really isn't a good thing to constantly bring up a player over and over again.

 

[smash84]

Ikki is just completely obsessed with Warne. In an unhealthy way.

I'm glad I don't have an unhealthy obsession with a player, it really isn't a good thing to constantly bring up a player over and over again.

btw the next list is up

 

[benchmark00]

I reckon Bradman and Tendulkar will both suffer in this from people trying to funny and submitting completely serious and conventional lists bar the omission of one or both of them.

If you actually think Tendulkar and/or Bradman aren't worthy of being in cricket's top 25 and you omit them, that's fine, and that's what this exercise is about... but I don't think anyone here who left them off would actually fall into that category. People are going to manipulate, and I think more relevantly people are just going to troll with stuff like that because they think it's funny to vote Mohammad Ashraful in Bradman's place and give everyone below him a few points to catch up with.

Read this as 'people are going to masturbate' first time round ftr.

 

[Ikki]

There is a reason we are conducting this voting, and not copy-pasting from an 'experts' list. Is there? If not, why are we?

By the way if we are basing our opinions on experts ('notable judges', as you say) then what do you think when Sobers says that Gupte was a better spinner than Warne? Or, when Hutton says that Gavaskar would be as famous as Bradman had he been an English or an Australian? Or, when Sobers says that Gavaskar is the best batsman he's seen? Or when Bradman picks Arthur Morris in his all-time XI? Or, when Warne keeps Waugh at no. 14 (?) among his Aussie teammates? Or when Dravid says that only God could be better than Ganguly on the off-side...

It seems very hard to make you understand the word 'honesty'. You would never know whether I am being honest while making my list. Only I would know. And this kind of a voting will work only if everyone is honest - not if you deliberately vote the other way to 'counter' other voters. If you think like that today, tommorrow I might vote for Ganguly at no. 1 to counter Jardine, and day after Jono will bring in Kohli ahead of Bradman...that's the way World War III starts

I generally don't rate Sobers' opinion as he has proved he generally rates mainly those who played with him. The same reason I might not consider Warne seriously based on how he rates some of the teammates he disliked. But that's not the problem. You will often find some people with slightly different ideas, but in general the trend stays the same.

I find it humorous that people are taking my reaction to this as if I mean for it to be something more than it is. I don't care who ends up where insofar as it impacts my ratings of players and I don't overestimate how important this exercise is. I just do these things with the best of intentions and I do not do the tactical voting stuff which I am sure has gone on. That is why I said maybe a public vote is best; because then people will refrain from the inane unless they don't mind people judging their lists as they are.

Last time round was brilliant IMO because people honestly got into the idea and it was a nice reflection, I felt (even though I disagreed with a lot of the ratings) of the forum. It's also often been cited in threads from that moment forth. Now, whilst people can do what they want, from what I've read it looks like a few people are gaming it this time round. And that's a shame because we could have a brilliant exercise again with differences this time round.

 

[Ikki]

Hey Smali, I reckon a good idea would be to make a list also of the players that were mentioned and see how much they rose or fell in compared to the last time and also who came and who didn't make the list this time.

 

[smash84]

dude some people are also taking the piss in this thread