CW50 2nd Edition - No 01

[vic_orthdox]

A great allrounder is much rarer, much more valuable and I suspect much harder to be than a great specialist, which is why they are quite rightly so highly prized.

Then how rare is Bradman?

 

[vic_orthdox]

This.

As has already been said. I am one of the bastards who didn't place Bradman quite where he should be. Regardless of that though, he isn't my greatest cricketer of all time because he can't bowl. Number two imo is a fair reflection of where Bradman should be, though I had a couple more of the great allrounders ahead of him.

He is without doubt the finest batsman the game has ever seen by a huge distance, but allrounders get a natural advantage in my book as cricketers because they can participate in all facets of being a cricketer, which includes fielding and captaincy.

I submitted a couple of smart arse inclusions and exclusions because people were getting so hurt and precious before this exercise even begun. My list was also much different from a list I would usually submit, not just because of Doug Bracewell being the greatest cricketer of all time, but because I decided to challenge myself and write it with a slight variation on criteria. I submitted my list but varied it by giving a higher weighting to men who have had the greatest impact on the game, whether through greatness or folklore. I think I managed to forget one West Indian which was a genuine error, but my list would have skewed the results regardless because major players behind Bodyline got a boost and I included players like Bob Blair who aren't great at cricket but are undoubtedly great cricketers for sheer testicular fortitude. Allan Border, Ricky Ponting and Steve Waugh also benefited from my criteria.

If Smali and NUFAN are hurt by my unorthodox rankings then I sincerely apologise, but if it is any consolation I think this list is entirely fair, so you have at least one backer of the list, even if he is a bastard.

My only excuse is I didn't think so many would think like me, but then this is CW, so you have to expect the mischief. You could argue this list represents CW far more than the first.

Last of all, thank you lads for running this. It has been great fun.

cliffs: PEWS is a rat

Never read a more self-serving pile of dribble. It's like PEWS without the computer generated heartless logic.

God forbid people treat something that a few people invest their time in on this place, if not completely seriously, but with at least some semblance of respect.

 

[marc71178]

Sobers was the equivalent of 1.7 world class players (1.2 batsmen and 0.5 bowlers).

Erm WTF?

 

[GIMH]

Never read a more self-serving pile of dribble. It's like PEWS without the computer generated heartless logic.

God forbid people treat something that a few people invest their time in on this place, if not completely seriously, but with at least some semblance of respect.

 

[Flem274*]

Never read a more self-serving pile of dribble. It's like PEWS without the computer generated heartless logic.

God forbid people treat something that a few people invest their time in on this place, if not completely seriously, but with at least some semblance of respect.

If it is self serving to not treat CW like Wisden, explain why, and talk about how I rank players, and apologise to Smali and NUFAN if they feel I have wronged them, then yes I'm happy to call it self serving.

The semblance of respect will be the majority of rankings I gave which were serious.

Responses like yours almost make me regret not listing 25 complete randoms.

edit: On second read, I can't tell if you're being completely serious or not, ironically.

 

[Cevno]

Never read a more self-serving pile of dribble. It's like PEWS without the computer generated heartless logic.

God forbid people treat something that a few people invest their time in on this place, if not completely seriously, but with at least some semblance of respect.

Yeah, but that is different to acting all precious and self righteous about it. Like if x isn't rated above y then this list is worthless. Those who leave out x or rate him low, should be named and shamed that's the type of thing which Flem is referring to, i think.

Someone IIRC wanted everyone's lists to be disclosed so he could give his subjective judgement on them and decide who's opinion he could give a rat's ass about etc.....

 

[Ikki]

I think if you had listed 25 complete randoms it wouldn't have been as much of a problem.

Yeah, but that is different to acting all precious and self righteous about it. Like if x isn't rated above y then this list is worthless. Those who leave out x or rate him low, should be named and shamed that's the type of thing which Flem is referring to, i think.

Someone IIRC wanted everyone's lists to be disclosed so he could give his subjective judgement on them and decide who's opinion he could give a rat's ass about etc.....

That was me.

And I really don't understand the problem. You're not disclosing your income here. I think if people wanted to joke or game the voting system then they could do so not under complete anonymity. What is there to hide? Is it any different to a public poll?

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah, but that is different to acting all precious and self righteous about it. Like if x isn't rated above y then this list is worthless. Those who leave out x or rate him low, should be named and shamed that's the type of thing which Flem is referring to, i think.

Someone IIRC wanted everyone's lists to be disclosed so he could give his subjective judgement on them and decide who's opinion he could give a rat's ass about etc.....

They did. They posted right below you.

I don't think they were the only one in all fairness.

 

[Spikey]

why didn't people just not send in joke lists

 

[vic_orthdox]

If it is self serving to not treat CW like Wisden, explain why, and talk about how I rank players, and apologise to Smali and NUFAN if they feel I have wronged them, then yes I'm happy to call it self serving.

The semblance of respect will be the majority of rankings I gave which were serious.

Responses like yours almost make me regret not listing 25 complete randoms.

edit: On second read, I can't tell if you're being completely serious or not, ironically.

Firstly, as I said in the number 2 thread, I've no issue with how the thread turned out, I can understand how, especially with the current fetish of all-rounders at CW, Sobers or Imran could push Bradman out of the number 1 position.

You're the one building the straw man about Wisden. My issue is with the self-serving reasons that you've used to justify what you did afterwards. You list reasons for it that completely contradict what you did.

 

[Spark]

why didn't people just not send in joke lists

What an extraordinary proposition

 

[smash84]

why didn't people just not send in joke lists

What an extraordinary proposition

 

[Flem274*]

Firstly, as I said in the number 2 thread, I've no issue with how the thread turned out, I can understand how, especially with the current fetish of all-rounders at CW, Sobers or Imran could push Bradman out of the number 1 position.

You're the one building the straw man about Wisden. My issue is with the self-serving reasons that you've used to justify what you did afterwards. You list reasons for it that completely contradict what you did.

My reasons for the way my list turned out were;

-People were getting so wound up about the entire thing that after I poked fun at them in thread, I left out Bradman and Tendulkar on purpose, on a whim (my first list I sent included both) knowing what their reaction would be if Bradman came second. Yes it was passive aggressive, knee jerk, and intellectually dishonest, but self serving? Hardly. Not even I thought my one vote would swing it. I didn't expect so many people to leave Bradman out.
-I ranked players slightly differently to start with anyway. I'm entitled to write my own list the way I want. Once again, my slightly quirky list was not going to do anything in isolation.

And that's how my hybrid list ended up as it is.

Really, the overreaction by some people here is ridiculous. It's CWs top 50, so CW as a whole gets to decide, not just selected members who must then submit their list to Ikki or whoever before it is approved. FFS, just use the first list if it means so much to you (generic you).

There are only two members who have a right to feel aggrieved, and I will speak to them personally if they do feel so. The rest of you knew you were submitting lists alongside people you completely disagreed with and complete smartarses, some of whom haven't been named yet. I think Grace should have won the thing, but I'm not going to seek out whoever left him off or ranked him below Kirk Edwards as a joke. Some of you don't even know the reasons some people left out Bradman or Marshall or whoever. Maybe they don't rate people who they haven't seen play?

Whatever. I'm out. Smali and NUFAN, I'll get in touch later on.

 

[Spikey]

What an extraordinary proposition

i mean, I didn't send in a ballot because I left it to the last minute and I knew I was forgetting too many people for it to be a worthy ballot, and then it turns out all these ****s have intentionally left out people just to get their own way and I dunno know piss people off? jesus christ guys. oh well. good stuff from smalishah84 and NUFAN, anyway

 

[GIMH]

I didn't vote so don't feel too entitled to moan. I think I agree with a lot of what has been said, but the way I really see it is that I don't think Sobers is a prank number one at all, the guy was a freak, a superb cricketer, the likes of which we will almost certainly never see again. However, I do think that Bradman is a prank number two.

 

[The Sean]

hmmm......dude I just noticed that actually nobody voted Sobers at number 1. I'll have to edit his profile.

Out of interest, how many people had Bradman at number 1?

 

[vic_orthdox]

My reasons for the way my list turned out were;

-People were getting so wound up about the entire thing that after I poked fun at them in thread, I left out Bradman and Tendulkar on purpose, on a whim (my first list I sent included both) knowing what their reaction would be if Bradman came second. Yes it was passive aggressive, knee jerk, and intellectually dishonest, but self serving? Hardly. Not even I thought my one vote would swing it. I didn't expect so many people to leave Bradman out.
-I ranked players slightly differently to start with anyway. I'm entitled to write my own list the way I want. Once again, my slightly quirky list was not going to do anything in isolation.

And that's how my hybrid list ended up as it is.

Really, the overreaction by some people here is ridiculous. It's CWs top 50, so CW as a whole gets to decide, not just selected members who must then submit their list to Ikki or whoever before it is approved. FFS, just use the first list if it means so much to you (generic you).

There are only two members who have a right to feel aggrieved, and I will speak to them personally if they do feel so. The rest of you knew you were submitting lists alongside people you completely disagreed with and complete smartarses, some of whom haven't been named yet. I think Grace should have won the thing, but I'm not going to seek out whoever left him off or ranked him below Kirk Edwards as a joke. Some of you don't even know the reasons some people left out Bradman or Marshall or whoever. Maybe they don't rate people who they haven't seen play?

Whatever. I'm out. Smali and NUFAN, I'll get in touch later on.

Thank you, just wanted you to admit you were trolling.

EDIT: and the self-serving thing, once again, was your explanation, not why you did it. In other words, you did it for the troll, and then your first explanation tried to make a credible reason for it, when in the end you were just trolling.

 

[Spark]

i mean, I didn't send in a ballot because I left it to the last minute and I knew I was forgetting too many people for it to be a worthy ballot, and then it turns out all these ****s have intentionally left out people just to get their own way and I dunno know piss people off? jesus christ guys. oh well. good stuff from smalishah84 and NUFAN, anyway

As I said, if I knew this was what would happen, I'd not have voted.

I just think it's poor form. Really, really poor form. Not only have you wasted an enormous amount of two blokes' time, but you've ruined the whole exercise for the rest of us who wanted to take it seriously. Does trolling everyone who bothered to take the exercise seriously really give you that much of a kick? Really?

Just don't vote if you can't take it seriously. It's not that hard.

NB. Claiming it's all an overreaction is pretty poor as well and misses the point - no one's saying this will change anyone's mind or cause confusion across the cricketing world as to who is actually better. People are just disappointed that a potentially illuminating and thought-provoking exercise was ruined because a few people chose to be dicks.

And Phlegm, don't talk about why you wouldn't rate Bradman #2 behind Sobers, because your list didn't actually do that.

 

[smash84]

Out of interest, how many people had Bradman at number 1?

I don't have the list with me right now but at least 40 I would venture

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

A batting lineup with Bradman in it could afford to play five specialist bowlers if they so desired. More to the point, batting is more important than bowling when it comes to numbers in a side, because everyone has to bat. A batting lineup with four world class bowlers will barely have need of a part timer (look at the WIndies during the 80s).

A team of 11 Bradmans would lose to a team of 11 Sobers in a timeless test. That's my theory. I don't think it matters whether Bradman's worth 2 batsmen, 10 batsmen or 100 batsmen; he's worth zero bowlers. You need 20 wickets to win a match. That was my thinking anyway.