cnerd123
likes this
Sounds more like a porn movie
thatsthejoke.jpgGood from migara here.
Sounds more like a porn movie
thatsthejoke.jpgGood from migara here.
If you cut off voting to a pool of X number of cricketers, there will always be cricketers on the fringes of X who miss out or get overlooked that then other people complain about not havingHall not making the cut is pretty dire. I'd have him somewhere close to Roberts and Davidson.
FalseIf you cut off voting to a pool of X number of cricketers, there will always be cricketers on the fringes of X who miss out or get overlooked that then other people complain about not having
Personally, if I was Mr Mister, I'd make as comprehensive a list as I could, and ask people to be 20 (or 25 or 30 or whatever) out of that large list. You basically just don't want people writing in Mustafizur Rahman into number 1 and ****ing up the data (ala Ian Harvey in that ODI cricketers list we did...), but you also don't want such a narrow list that exclude some players who deserve to be in the discussion.
Agree. Come up with a list of 40 pacers. From which, vote for the Top 20. This may take more work, but it would be more reflective of people's choice.If you cut off voting to a pool of X number of cricketers, there will always be cricketers on the fringes of X who miss out or get overlooked that then other people complain about not having
Personally, if I was Mr Mister, I'd make as comprehensive a list as I could, and ask people to be 20 (or 25 or 30 or whatever) out of that large list. You basically just don't want people writing in Mustafizur Rahman into number 1 and ****ing up the data (ala Ian Harvey in that ODI cricketers list we did...), but you also don't want such a narrow list that exclude some players who deserve to be in the discussion.
This is more accurate. The way it's being done is much simpler though. None of the guys not on the list would place high up anyway.If you cut off voting to a pool of X number of cricketers, there will always be cricketers on the fringes of X who miss out or get overlooked that then other people complain about not having
Personally, if I was Mr Mister, I'd make as comprehensive a list as I could, and ask people to be 20 (or 25 or 30 or whatever) out of that large list. You basically just don't want people writing in Mustafizur Rahman into number 1 and ****ing up the data (ala Ian Harvey in that ODI cricketers list we did...), but you also don't want such a narrow list that exclude some players who deserve to be in the discussion.
This.The really egregious offence is forcing CW to vote Anderson onto a list of the top bowlers ever
I use this rule when it comes to longevity: being mediocre (or whatever) for a long time doesn't somehow magically make you great. Anderson simply doesn't have the all round record (in this case away performances) to be considered near most of the others on that list, despite his longevity.Anderson has longevity and aggregate records
Of these, the only one that I think deserves a place rather than an honourable mention is Pollock. 9 year career on paper, even if the period meant very few tests, plus his career was ended by something completely external to himself. World number 1 ranked bowler at the time.Some guys who would've really rocked on their day but didn't have a career long enough to make it to this list...
Ryan Harris
Shane Bond
Colin Croft
Peter Pollock
Fanie De Villiers