CW ODI Voting is there bias?

[honestbharani]

Chad move

Its really only because there are so so many of them, tbf. Till this explosion of comparison threads happened, I was a lot more rational in my voting.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Its really only because there are so so many of them, tbf. Till this explosion of comparison threads happened, I was a lot more rational in my voting.

Nah, everyone shouldn't be rational in PC really. Some people should just vote for the player they want to, without any convoluted explanations. Feels like a breath of fresh air.

 

[slowfinger]

Chad move

can you smell what the Rock is cooking?

 

[Johan]

can you smell what the Rock is cooking?

I do smell what the final biss is cooking yes

 

[Qlder]

@Line and Length there's basically 80 players from 8 countries that made the 2 lists (plus Rashid Khan). If you were expecting 10 players from each country then who are the 6 English that missed out "because of bias"?

It's lucky it wasn't only 3 English as Willis wth only 80 wickets was very lucky to get in

 

[slowfinger]

how has Pietersen not had a shout at getting in, he invented the bloody switch hit FFS!

this gaslighting needs to stop about England not producing any quality ODI players

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

who are the 6 English that missed out "because if bias"?

Chris Woakes x 6.

Stupid bias.

 

[Line and Length]

@Line and Length there's basically 80 players from 8 countries that made the 2 lists (plus Rashid Khan). If you were expecting 10 players from each country then who are the 6 English that missed out "because of bias"?

It's lucky it wasn't only 3 English as Willis wth only 80 wickets was very lucky to get in

I certainly wasn't expecting 10 players from each of 8 countries. Australia's dominance over time rightly gives them the largest number while India's more recent form deserves over 10 representatives. My question is, are Pakistan, South Africa, West Indies, Sri Lanka and New Zealand all that much stronger over the history of ODIs that they have double (or almost double) the representation of England?

Regarding Willis, you question his credentials to sneak in at equal # 40 on the list citing his "only 80 wickets".
What about Andy Roberts with "only 87 wickets" at #21? Is he lucky to be included?
And what about de Villiers at #25? He has only 15 more wickets than Willis from 19 extra games. How dues he deserve to be ahead of Willis with an inferior average and Strike Rate? Elsewhere I have seen justification for his inclusion to be his Economy Rate. This is also inferior to Willis's.

No, I wasn't expecting 10 representatives from England. I expected something in the 5-7 range - not 3 as you infer. I would throw in the names of Morgan, Lamb and Gough as players who wouldn't have looked out of place.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I certainly wasn't expecting 10 players from each of 8 countries. Australia's dominance over time rightly gives them the largest number while India's more recent form deserves over 10 representatives. My question is, are Pakistan, South Africa, West Indies, Sri Lanka and New Zealand all that much stronger over the history of ODIs that they have double (or almost double) the representation of England?

Regarding Willis, you question his credentials to sneak in at equal # 40 on the list citing his "only 80 wickets".
What about Andy Roberts with "only 87 wickets" at #21? Is he lucky to be included?
And what about de Villiers at #25? He has only 15 more wickets than Willis from 19 extra games. How dues he deserve to be ahead of Willis with an inferior average and Strike Rate? Elsewhere I have seen justification for his inclusion to be his Economy Rate. This is also inferior to Willis's.

No, I wasn't expecting 10 representatives from England. I expected something in the 5-7 range - not 3 as you infer. I would throw in the names of Morgan, Lamb and Gough as players who wouldn't have looked out of place.

I think what England has done was till like the the very early 90s, they had a decent overall ODI team. They never were the best, never had World beaters, just a few good players from that era. Then they were awfully average for around 2 decades and turned a new leaf around the mid 2010s. But still, it was more a collective performance rather than individual brilliance. So on an individual level, these teams do have more Greats than England, as honesty, an AT England XI is the worst among the big 8.
Willis played in a much early era. Comparing him 1-0-1 with someone like FdV is just..... Wrong. Might as well say Manoj Prabhakar has a better Eco than Jasprit Bumrah.
Morgan, Gough and Lamb won't look out of place, but so won't Matthew Hayden, Virendra Sehwag, David Miller, Shai Hope, Adam Zampa, Daniel Vettori, Zaheer Khan, Matt Henry, Kagiso Rabada, etc.