CW50 2nd Edition - No 02

[Spark]

now I feel so bad.....having put in so many hours on this

Feel for you tbh. No one asked you to do this, I imagine it'd have taken a hell of a lot of work.

Good on you for having a crack and seeing it through though.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's not your fault. It's Phlegm's fault.

****ing knew it

 

[Prince EWS]

Not your fault smiley. You have done a great job. Well done and thanks to you and NUFAN.

Name and shame IMO

Phlegm mentioned that he submitted an entirely serious list - but without Tendulkar and Bradman, and with Doug Bracewell on top.

This is why we can't have nice things, Phlegm. If you're going to submit a joke list, don't list any serious contenders.

1. Bracewell, 2. Ingram, 3. Hay, 4. Mason etc would've been fine. But 1. Bracewell, 2. Sobers just ruins it for people who wanted to take it seriously.

 

[Shri]

some people while trying to be funny ended up destroying it.....

the reason I took so long to put this up was that I wanted to do some editing and put Bradman on top....tbh I really was tempted to do it but then decided not to tamper with anything.

I wanted to discuss this with NUFAN but didn't go ahead with the discussion either.....but this is it folks......

it was great to conduct this exercise although in the end people were disappointed.

List would have been more credible if you knew the difference between Martin Crowe and Russell Crowe.

 

[Shri]

It's not your fault. It's Phlegm's fault.

DingDong approves.

 

[Cabinet96]

Not your fault smiley. You have done a great job. Well done and thanks to you and NUFAN.

Name and shame IMO

AWTA, Smali to reveal the ****s who ruined this IMO.

 

[The Sean]

Gah, I knew there was someone obvious I'd forgotten.

 

[GIMH]

Phlegm mentioned that he submitted an entirely serious list - but without Tendulkar and Bradman, and with Doug Bracewell on top.

This is why we can't have nice things, Phlegm. If you're going to submit a joke list, don't list any serious contenders.

1. Bracewell, 2. Ingram, 3. Hay, 4. Mason etc would've been fine. But 1. Bracewell, 2. Sobers just ruins it for people who wanted to take it seriously.

Yep in the CW's 50 top bands exercise I did receive a joke list. It's now replaced by a serious one but because all bar one of the acts would have received their only vote from this list, it would have made zero difference to anything aside from giving one band one extra point. Joke lists should go all the way or they kinda ruin the whole thing.

Shameless plug over

 

[Cevno]

Good job running it Smiley and Nufan.

Did a pretty good job with all the hassle and creating the treads etc and also the writeups.
'
And i don't see a major issue with Bradman at 2 either. Every player would have had some people leaving them lower for the right reasons, or the wrong reasons and the same is true with Bradman.

Though really it shouldn't be like that, it is the case with all such exercises. Anyways looking at the list on the macro level though i may not have ranked the players like they ended up, it's been largely a fair list and certainly not something that a few joke votes have spoiled.

 

[kyear2]

A real shame, the fact that six people didn't vote for him at all was quite shameful, as I said for Marshall ect. As i suggested anyway the votes should be made public, if for no other reason to see who we should take less seriously in the future.
Hope this doesn't take away from Sobers greatness.

 

[Cabinet96]

If the people who didn't put Bradman in their top 25 want to argue why he isn't amongst the top 25 players of all time then please do. If they don't really think that then they should be named and shamed for ruining this for everyone involved and in particular Smali for spending hours of his free time to try and do a fun activity for every one here.

 

[Fusion]

Nah, no need to go overboard and call for a public censure and what not. If they want to disclose their reasons for leaving him off, then great. If not, then no big deal. It's just a fun exercise on a cricket forum. Bradman's greatness is not affected in any way by how we ranked him on CW.

 

[Cabinet96]

I just feel that if they seriously left him out for cricketing reasons, they would be more than happy to share why. Naming and shaming is probably a bit far yes, but I think the people who left him out should tell us all why.

 

[zaremba]

Nah, no need to go overboard and call for a public censure and what not. If they want to disclose their reasons for leaving him off, then great. If not, then no big deal. It's just a fun exercise on a cricket forum. Bradman's greatness is not affected in any way by how we ranked him on CW.

quite so

 

[turnstyle]

Never made runs in India, i'm guessing. That seems to be the prerequisite for just about everything in cricket these days.

 

[Burgey]

At least this finally proves forever that Sobers > Imran, and by quite some margin

 

[Burgey]

Yep in the CW's 50 top bands exercise I did receive a joke list. It's now replaced by a serious one but because all bar one of the acts would have received their only vote from this list, it would have made zero difference to anything aside from giving one band one extra point. Joke lists should go all the way or they kinda ruin the whole thing.

Shameless plug over

No list with S Club 7 at the top is ever a joke!

 

[morgieb]

OK....so which 6 members decided to play silly buggers?

 

[Garson007]

Could it be that six members decided that they couldn't possibly rate a player they've never seen play? Not even some proper test playing footage. I don't begrudge people the opinion to not rate somebody all they know of is a (excellent) stat sheet. Especially when it's been drilled home that stats aren't everything.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yup, remember Beleg often said it was only fair that he voted upon players that he'd seen play. Some people see it that way.

Still disappointed for the guys who put the time into it, if they feel that they've been had a bit by people not taking it seriously.