CW50 2nd Edition - No 01

[Spikey]

shut it ****

 

[Jono]

Yeah true.

Kohli #1 instead of Sachin

 

[Pup Clarke]

It's like PEWS

Just came in to post that

 

[marc71178]

Sobers' bowling's not too flash on the whole?

Apparently so, because the stats say so (even though they patently don't).

 

[uvelocity]

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

if you had more pulling power, could have squeezed some nev votes in there and really ****ed it up spikey

 

[MrPrez]

This thing is flawed.

Vernon Philander should be no1.

That is all.

 

[ankitj]

Just to illustrate the amount of impact joke lists can have - it will take additional 28 people to vote Bradman #1 and Sobers #2 (as most people likely rate them) for Bradman to bridge the gap. That's how much joke lists can spoil it.

There can be an alternative way of ranking players to get around this problem. You give 1 point for each rank #1 in a list, 2 for rank #2, so on till 25 points for rank #25. Add up all the points and rank the players based on who gets fewest points. As per the lists submitted in this exercise:

Bradman with 51 votes at average rank of 2.5 gets 51x2.5 = 127.5 points
Sobers with 55 votes at average rank of 3.6 gets 55x3.6 = 198 points

Bradman's points < Sobers' points, hence Bradman gets ranked higher. Few joke lists thus wouldn't have spoiled anything.

Only additional step this will involve is awarding 26 points to everyone that doesn't make a list. So if only 1 person out of 57 votes for Ishant Sharma at #1, Ishant gets 1+56*26 = 1457 points and most likely doesn't enter top 50.

I wish I had thought of this before the countdown started, would've suggested to Smali and Nufan.

 

[bagapath]

brilliant. how does it change the rankings overall?

 

[ankitj]

Above is bull****. If you add 2x26 and 6x26 to Sobers and Bradman respectively, we end up with the same problem. How dumb was that!

 

[bagapath]

Above is bull****. If you add 2x26 and 6x26 to Sobers and Bradman respectively, we end up with the same problem. How dumb was that!

and i typed brilliant two minutes ago. how dumb is that!

 

[ankitj]

brilliant. how does it change the rankings overall?

 

[MrPrez]

This thing is flawed.

Vernon Philander should be no1.

That is all.

Just to clarify, I didn't send in a list - this was a joke post, but I did not send in a joke list.

Gotta keepz upz da rep on da interwebz and all.

 

[smash84]

Just to illustrate the amount of impact joke lists can have - it will take additional 28 people to vote Bradman #1 and Sobers #2 (as most people likely rate them) for Bradman to bridge the gap. That's how much joke lists can spoil it.

There can be an alternative way of ranking players to get around this problem. You give 1 point for each rank #1 in a list, 2 for rank #2, so on till 25 points for rank #25. Add up all the points and rank the players based on who gets fewest points. As per the lists submitted in this exercise:

Bradman with 51 votes at average rank of 2.5 gets 51x2.5 = 127.5 points
Sobers with 55 votes at average rank of 3.6 gets 55x3.6 = 198 points

Bradman's points < Sobers' points, hence Bradman gets ranked higher. Few joke lists thus wouldn't have spoiled anything.

Only additional step this will involve is awarding 26 points to everyone that doesn't make a list. So if only 1 person out of 57 votes for Ishant Sharma at #1, Ishant gets 1+56*26 = 1457 points and most likely doesn't enter top 50.

I wish I had thought of this before the countdown started, would've suggested to Smali and Nufan.

I think we would have worked around the problem had I chosen weldone's method of scoring of number of votes times the points

 

[Sparkley]

With all due respect, how does it matter where players are ranked in what is essentially an online voting? There is bound to be bias, there is bound to be some idiocy and some mischief - human nature, etc. No point system can eliminate that. Moreover there might be people who geuinely, whether rightly or wrongly, believe that Sobers is better than Bradman or that Bradman was a hack who has a record that flatters him or that Ponting is a better all rounder than Imran Khan. It is their opinion and they are entitled to it, no matter how misguided we might think they are. I also highly doubt whether people actually have a definite opinion on certain players. How does one compare Wasim Akram to say Sunil Gavaskar? They may simply vote arbitrarily in such a case given how they feel on the day. Bottom line is, such exercises are purely for fun and shouldn't be taken too seriously. Credit to whoever put time and effort into running this thing. Despite the surprise numero uno the list of 25 is still very credible.

 

[kyear2]

Yea, after the initial furror, its hard to say the list lacks any credability. The fact that Sobers finished first upset me much less that six persons not voting for Bradman, or a similar number not voting for Marshall, Imran ect. Sobers is acknowledged as the second greatest player ever and in the pantheon with Bradman, Grace and Hobbs. If some thought the multifaceted Sobers is a better overall cricketer, then so be it. Focus on the positives of Sobers rather than pulling down a man most people voted number two out of anger that Bradman didn't get number one.

 

[ankitj]

As far as I can see, no one has pulled down Sobers. The discussion has been around how serious were the lists.