CW Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition

[Coronis]

Asking people to list 50 names in order is bound to be dodgy as hell IMO. Particularly because, for me, the gap between #50 and #40 will be miniscule compared to, say, the gap between #12 and #9. You could have some hybrid, asking people to rank a set number of names which get a diminishing number of points going down the list, then have a "pool" of names which all get the same number of points - your "honourable mentions", as it were.

Agreed. Perhaps an ranked top 25 and an unranked 26-50?

 

[weldone]

The chances of this happening are very very remote IMO

No, Cabinet's point is extremely valid (and I've said the same). This list is biased towards players who polarize opinions (like Flintoff, Jardine).

Consider Flintoff vs Subhash Gupte (just a hypothetical example) - Now, there are many voters (like me) who won't keep Gupte in top 25 but will keep him in top 50.

Let's say 4 out of 20 voters keep Flintoff in top 25, but none keep Gupte. But if we do the voting with 50, maybe 13 among 20 will keep Gupte (all between 26-50) while only 7 out of 20 will keep Flintoff.

 

[The Sean]

Agreed. Perhaps an ranked top 25 and an unranked 26-50?

That's how the ESPN Legends of Cricket exercise did it for each voter - 26 points for no.1 down to 2 points for no.25, with 1 point each for the unranked 26-50.

 

[smash84]

No, Cabinet's point is extremely valid (and I've said the same). This list is biased towards players who polarize opinions (like Flintoff, Jardine).

Consider Flintoff vs Subhash Gupte (just a hypothetical example) - Now, there are many voters (like me) who won't keep Gupte in top 25 but will keep him in top 50.

Let's say 4 out of 20 voters keep Flintoff in top 25, but none keep Gupte. But if we do the voting with 50, maybe 13 among 20 will keep Gupte (all between 26-50) while only 7 out of 20 will keep Flintoff.

Even then you can argue that some posters value flintoff so high that he does deserve a place higher than gupte

 

[GIMH]

No, Cabinet's point is extremely valid (and I've said the same). This list is biased towards players who polarize opinions (like Flintoff, Jardine).

Consider Flintoff vs Subhash Gupte (just a hypothetical example) - Now, there are many voters (like me) who won't keep Gupte in top 25 but will keep him in top 50.

Let's say 4 out of 20 voters keep Flintoff in top 25, but none keep Gupte. But if we do the voting with 50, maybe 13 among 20 will keep Gupte (all between 26-50) while only 7 out of 20 will keep Flintoff.

I've never heard of this gupte bloke but he obviously wasn't as good as Freddie

If you're going to do this then you just count all the votes. Otherwise it's not the CW50.

 

[Prince EWS]

Agreed. Perhaps an ranked top 25 and an unranked 26-50?

AWTA. And make the 26-50 optional.

So 25 ordered (mandatory) and then up to 25 additional unordered names after that.

 

[GIMH]

AWTA. And make the 26-50 optional.

So 25 ordered (mandatory) and then up to 25 additional unordered names after that.

Stop tinkering with the format. It achieves exactly what it sets out to.

 

[morgieb]

I don't really have a problem with the format, the problem is that cricket's a bit too objective.

 

[vic_orthdox]

More regularly you do it, the less people care and you'll get worse results.

Sort of like the Battle of the Members.

 

[Spikey]

we should only allow 25 people to submit ballots





i shotgun being one of them

 

[ankitj]

The chances of this happening are very very remote IMO

Think that can happen. The 3 W's will fall in that category very likely.

 

[ankitj]

Agreed. Perhaps an ranked top 25 and an unranked 26-50?

Yes, that's how ESPN's Legends of Cricket were selected IIRC.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Should just lock Bradman Sobers and Kohli as the top 3 and vote for the other 47 to avoid a farce like the 2nd edition.

 

[Pratters]

AWTA. And make the 26-50 optional.

So 25 ordered (mandatory) and then up to 25 additional unordered names after that.

I like this idea. Makes sense. Not having it too frequently is also the way to go. While every 5 years is ideal and even 3 years is a bit quick, it is okay I guess. Never bad to have lesson in cricket history and see where the forum stands regarding past/present greats.

 

[dogwalker]

I don't rate bats as high as bowls so Bradman doesn't crack my top 73.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't rate bats as high as bowls so Bradman doesn't crack my top 73.

Averaged barely 2 runs higher with the ball in test cricket than Sobers.

 

[dogwalker]

Has a strike rate 28 balls worse off than Nantie Hayward though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

12 better than Sobers, 7.7 better than Lance Gibbs and 0.3 better than Bishen Bedi.

 

[dogwalker]

Jeez, that is a woeful SR from Sobers. What a hack.

 

[cnerd123]

Bradman did take all his wickets vs England tho and they are awful at playing spin.