Battle of the Cricketers

[Buddhmaster]

Richards

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Bradman. Greatest cricketer that ever lived and all that.

 

[Jono]

Richards, can't vote for someone who shouldn't be in the comp, looking forward to the real final between Richards and Lara

Its not the real final though, because for example Bradman or Sobers could have knocked someone out in the first round who should be in the top 4, but because he faced Bradman or Sobers he didn't make it far. Whereas Viv and Lara managed to avoid those 2.

Despite that I think Viv and Lara are worthy of top 4, Viv especially.

Anyway I'll vote Bradman, if Bradman has knocked out so many people already he may as well win this thing.

 

[chaminda_00]

Its not the real final though, because for example Bradman or Sobers could have knocked someone out in the first round who should be in the top 4, but because he faced Bradman or Sobers he didn't make it far. Whereas Viv and Lara managed to avoid those 2.

Despite that I think Viv and Lara are worthy of top 4, Viv especially.

Anyway I'll vote Bradman, if Bradman has knocked out so many people already he may as well win this thing.

Yeah i think i said in a early post that didn't except those two to be in the top 4, even though their worthly contenders. There have been some big players that Bradman and Sobers have knocked, which is why they should have been in the comp. But Viv and Lara is closest thing we are going to get to a realistic final.

 

[Robertinho]

Its not the real final though, because for example Bradman or Sobers could have knocked someone out in the first round who should be in the top 4, but because he faced Bradman or Sobers he didn't make it far. Whereas Viv and Lara managed to avoid those 2.

Exactly! See: Hobbs, many more

 

[Burpey]

Bradman ... this battle will lack any credibility if Bradman doesn't win. The point of exercise I think was to see who would be voted the best behind Bradman and Sobers

 

[Slow Love™]

Nationalistic bias very much on display here. Funny how so many Australians thought it fit to vote for Warne ahead of Bradman, but wont vote for Viv ahead of him. This thread has seen its fair share of rubbish.

I agree there's been some silly voting, but why the hell are you making such a big deal out of nationalistic bias??? I just went back and checked, and the vast majority of those that voted for Warne over Bradman were from elsewhere (mainly Englishmen). Only two by my count were Australians, and one of them has voted for Richards, while the other hasn't voted yet in this matchup. So I think you're a fair way off the mark.

And I vote Bradman.

 

[Jamee999]

Exactly! See: Hobbs, many more

Hobbs: Got into the last 8, where he was knocked out by Sobers.

Let's look back at Sobers' draw:

Round 1: Everton Weekes, 15-0 Sobers. Not that great
Round 2: Joel Garner, 17-3 Sobers. A good player, might have got into the Round of 16 with some luck, but wasn't chopped off tooo early.
Round of 16: Malcolm Marshall, 20-3 Sobers. Probably one of the 16 best players ever? Best 8 is pushing it.
Quarter Finals: Jack Hobbs, 18-4 Sobers. A great player, who deserved a Quarter Final place, yet that was probably his proper place to finish.
Semi Finals: Brian Lara, 16-7 Sobers. A world class player, and did very well to get this far.

Now, with Bradman:

Round 1: Courtney Walsh, 14-3 Bradman. A good player, and this guy was a bit unlucky with the draw.
Round 2: Alan Donald, 15-2 Bradman. Another good player, but most of the guys who got into the Round of 16 would probably have beaten him.
Round of 16: Sunil Gavaskar, 17-3 Bradman. A great, and he deserved his last 16 place. May have got into the last 8, but he'd have been borderline I think.
Quarter Finals: Shane Warne, 16-15 Bradman. Great player, and he almost pulled off the shock of the tournament.
Semi Finals: Viv Richards, ????

I've got an idea!

Let's knock Chelsea out of the FA Cup because they might meet Liverpool in the 3rd Round, and knock them out, but they're better than being knocked out in the 3rd Round.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I've got an idea!

Let's knock Chelsea out of the FA Cup because they might meet Liverpool in the 3rd Round, and knock them out, but they're better than being knocked out in the 3rd Round.

Works for me! Just need to get the FA to agree...

 

[Robertinho]

Garner, Marshall, Hobbs, Walsh, Gavaskar - they're all friggin greats. Marshall is regarded as the best fast bowler ever, Hobbs and Gavaskar the best openers ever - c'mon, let's not pretend the 3rd place playoff hasn't been skewed a huge deal by the inclusion of Bradman and Sobers.

 

[Jamee999]

Garner, Marshall, Hobbs, Walsh, Gavaskar - they're all friggin greats. Marshall is regarded as the best fast bowler ever, Hobbs and Gavaskar the best openers ever - c'mon, let's not pretend the 3rd place playoff hasn't been skewed a huge deal by the inclusion of Bradman and Sobers.

Marshall, I really don't want to get into this arguement, allthough that is an idea I've thought of for a sequel.

Hobbs and Gavaskar, maybe so, and one of them got into the Best 8 and one into the Best 16?

There's no "Opener quota" Rob, AND it's not up to me who gets through.

And with regard to "they're all friggin greats.".

Lara and Richards aren't bad either.

 

[Deja moo]

I agree there's been some silly voting, but why the hell are you making such a big deal out of nationalistic bias??? I just went back and checked, and the vast majority of those that voted for Warne over Bradman were from elsewhere (mainly Englishmen). Only two by my count were Australians, and one of them has voted for Richards, while the other hasn't voted yet in this matchup. So I think you're a fair way off the mark.

And I vote Bradman.

you're right. I did a count, and there were 3 Australian votes for Warne. Even though I've misread the situation, I still think its ridiculous that Warne got so close to Bradman..

 

[Jamee999]

The mob Deja, the mob.

 

[Buddhmaster]

you're right. I did a count, and there were 3 Australian votes for Warne. Even though I've misread the situation, I still think its ridiculous that Warne got so close to Bradman..

Warne=legend

 

[Deja moo]

Warne=legend

yes, but anyone=Bradmans biatch

 

[C_C]

The only way you can have a fair and credible 'matchup' is if you used some basic seeding structure along with randomness.
Ie, apart from avoiding the very very obvious matchups ( like McGrath vs Ambrose, Warne vs Murali, Sachin vs Lara, Bradman vs Sobers, etc.) inorder to not be a party pooper/have unfair eliminations(like Lara or Tendulkar going out in 1st round), the rest of the matchups should be randomised in order and following a tree structure.. Ie, think about US open matchup format - where 32 seeds exist in a pool of 128 players and #1 and #2 seeds dont meet before the finals,#1-4 make the semis, #1-8 the quarters and # 1-16 the round of sixteen provided they win all their matchups.

Granted, such seeding is impossible for rating a cricketer, both due to the ambiguity of the system of ratings and the tediousness associated with it but it is not hard to avoid a lotta basic matchups such as the abovementioned ones.
But the randomness of the process ( i am willing to take James' word for it if that is the case) gives it more authenticity.

 

[Jono]

Yeah I'm hardly blaming Jamee, I only wanted to point out that the battle for 3rd doesn't necessarily mean that the winner is the best cricketer other than Bradman and Sobers, because logically that wouldn't work. I'm not too fussed, because the best thing about this comp wasn't seeing who would win in the end, but it was seeing who CW members preferred in the tough battles eg. Tendulkar v Richards, Lara v Imran, McGrath v Gilly etc.

 

[honestbharani]

Surprisingly, none of those battles were as close as Warne V Bradman.

 

[Tom Halsey]

It's interesting to see how people are so quick so vote against Bradman - 'he shouldn't be in the competition'... why? He's a cricketer isn't he? The greatest?

Because it was predictable what would happen. I agree the other battles were good, but ultimately it was predictable.

 

[Piper]

Bradman