CW's Ranking of Opening Batsmen (Tests)

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Gavaskar

 

[Line and Length]

It will be very interesting to see if there is much deviation in the list of openers as extracted from the poll on all batsmen. That order established the first 11 openers as:

Hobbs
Hutton
Gavaskar
Sutcliffe
Boycott
Trumper
Simpson
Smith
Sehwag
Hayden
Greenidge

 

[TheJediBrah]

Good pick. It was a tough choice for me between him and Hutton.

For me it was between Aakash and Sanjay Bangar

 

[The Sean]

So...if this exercise comes up with a different ranked order of openers than the list we have just finished, which one is definitive? Does this list render the other one out-of-date, even though it has literally been CW canon for a matter of days?

 

[ataraxia]

So...if this exercise comes up with a different ranked order of openers than the list we have just finished, which one is definitive? Does this list render the other one out-of-date, even though it has literally been CW canon for a matter of days?

I think this one will get a much better result, simply because there are less candidates for each of the top eleven spot and controversial (as to their quality) players won't have as much of an advantage.

That said, it's a pretty bad, if interesting, general ranking method this.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Calling either list "definitive" seems a bit presumptuous tbh. All depends on who is awake/at work and feels like browsing CW at the time

 

[Line and Length]

The recently completed list for batsmen saw voting open for 3 or 4 days. I wouldn't use the term "definitive" for either list though rushing this voting does render it questionable (see TheJediBrah's comment).
I would have preferred to see the voting as an extension (and enrichment) of the 11 openers on the recent list.

 

[Gob]

Usman

 

[ankitj]

What is the point of this thread?

 

[Line and Length]

What is the point of this thread?

I tend to agree. Starting from scratch when there is already a base foundation is repetitive.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This needs to start again to have any credibility, and a minimum vote time of at least one full day. To call number one after 90 minutes with six votes cast (apologies if the vote for Burns was serious) is very silly.

 

[ImpatientLime]

people picking hobbs over hutton are wylin. hutton is second only to bradman

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I think this is worthwhile. Openers are often very different from middle order bats and can go unappreciated. There were very few no 6s in the top 50 batting (admittedly some 5/6s), but almost all of the positions were 1-5 in the batting order. If there was a more even distribution there would thus be 20 openers in the top 50 batters, but instead there are only 11.
.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I personally hope Barry Richards makes the top 6 after missing the 11 (or missing the 50) earlier.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I personally hope Barry Richards makes the top 6 after missing the 11 (or missing the 50) earlier.

Tim Mcintosh in with a sniff

 

[jayjay]

I'd have gone Gavaskar first, Greenidge second...tbh the voting either needs to stay open longer and attract a wider group of members (I don't think there are many on this site anyway) or it's redundant as there is already a batsmen list.

 

[Bitmap]

Hutton for 2nd spot

 

[Line and Length]

I'd have gone Gavaskar first, Greenidge second...tbh the voting either needs to stay open longer and attract a wider group of members (I don't think there are many on this site anyway) or it's redundant as there is already a batsmen list.

I may not agree with your 1 and 2 but I respect your opinion and agree with your sentiment re redundancy.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think I would scrap this thread and start again at Number 12. A few new names might generate more interest and discussion rather than shuffling the same eleven into a potentially slightly different order.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Hutton for #1 if the first vote were to be extended.

Hutton for #2 otherwise.