CW Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition

[Furball]

Then I can collaborate with Turbi to put Harbhajan in top 50

So what?

 

[Furball]

No, but a guy who gets in the 20's for 10 people's list should be more deserving than if 1 person put someone else at the top...

If 1 1st place vote is enough to put someone in the top 50 then that's fine by me.

 

[Hurricane]

Keep it simple - 25 points for top down to 1 for 25th and total up.

Awesome I will vote in Chris Harris or Mike Mason again.

 

[ankitj]

Problem GF is that we would have barely 30-40 voters at the end, this makes it possible for an individual to manipulate the outcome. If there were hundreds of voters, this problem wouldn't occur.

Anyways, I sent my list (and picked a list I honestly believe in). Why do you guys still use hotmail, btw?

 

[weldone]

Not a fan of this. It works well for the top few players, but not so for the cricketers who will be receiving votes in the 20 to 25 range.

Otherwise, isn't it too easy to manipulate this list?

For example, I know Bradman will do well but I also want Kapil ahead of Botham in the list. I can simply place Kapil at no. 1 and throw Botham out of the 25. I personally don't think Kapil to be the best test cricketer ever, and I know that in spite of me rating him no. 1, he won't come out no. 1 in the final list - but it serves my purpose..

 

[ankitj]

We should all just agree to be honest with our votes irrespective of the methodology used. Are we allowed to discuss our list before all votes are in?

 

[weldone]

Then I can collaborate with Turbi to put Harbhajan in top 50

Count me in, for Kohli too.

If the rules don't change, let's collaborate for the middle-finger.

BTW, the list that I have sent has been prepared very honestly. But if the rules don't change, let's send a revised list by 28th?

 

[Hurricane]

I figured quite a few would get in easily anyway, so I thought I'd spare some votes to some other players who are deserving, but won't get nearly as many.

Agreed the top ten in particular are pretty predictable and will get in there with or without my vote so I plan to use my number one pick to promote a great servant of NZ cricket

Please join me in voting for Bruce.

 

[ankitj]

Count me in, for Kohli too.

If the rules don't change, let's collaborate for the middle-finger.

BTW, the list that I have sent has been prepared very honestly. But if the rules don't change, let's send a revised list by 28th?

Think putting up Kohli as avatar is already enough pain inflicted on the forum

 

[NUFAN]

Otherwise, isn't it too easy to manipulate this list?

For example, I know Bradman will do well but I also want Kapil ahead of Botham in the list. I can simply place Kapil at no. 1 and throw Botham out of the 25. I personally don't think Kapil to be the best test cricketer ever, and I know that in spite of me rating him no. 1, he won't come out no. 1 in the final list - but it serves my purpose..

I know what your saying, but like I say it doesn't work for players who get lots of votes in the 20s.

Why should a player who gets ranked 23, 25, 25, 24 = 7 x 4 = 28 get so much more points than someone who gets ranked 22, 23 = 7 x 2 = 14

Also, I don't really understand why anyone would have a purpose like that. Just pick the best 25 in order and see where your favourites finish.

 

[Hurricane]

I know what your saying, but like I say it doesn't work for players who get lots of votes in the 20s.

Why should a player who gets ranked 23, 25, 25, 24 = 7 x 4 = 28 get so much more points than someone who gets ranked 22, 23 = 7 x 2 = 14

Also, I don't really understand why anyone would have a purpose like that. Just pick the best 25 in order and see where your favourites finish.

The point I have been sarcastically making in my posts is that I agree with Ankit that there should be a 5 vote minimum to make it in. I was annoyed when Jardine made it in on the basis of one vote especially since I despise the fellow (RIP)

I am not in favour of weldone's system because it seems like over cooking it. But I will answer your problem with it - I actually think the player who got 28 points deserves it more than the person who got 14 - it is pretty arbitrary if someone gets ranked 22nd instead of 25th - and 4 people voted for the person with 28 points vs only 2 for the person with 14 points.

 

[smash84]

How about setting a qualification of receiving a vote from at least 5 voters to eradicate joke picks like Jardine and Flintoff last time around?

is a good idea...might actually go with this

Thinking along this line, I think that (total points * total votes received by that player) might make an interesting final list...In that case, we won't need the cut-off criteria, too...

For example, if Bradman receives 435 points, and 18 out of 20 memebers have voted for him, his total point would be (435*18)=7830 and so on...

A more sophisticated version of what Ankit says I suppose but GF below has a point

Nah, **** off.

A guy who places highly on 2 people's lists is more deserving of a place than a guy who gets 5 25th places.

We should all just agree to be honest with our votes irrespective of the methodology used. Are we allowed to discuss our list before all votes are in?

I would hope this is true of all members and that they will vote for the top 25 that they honestly believe deserve those spots.

 

[smash84]

interestingly though I just received a list that does not have Bradman among the top 25 cricketers of all time

 

[Hurricane]

is a good idea...might actually go with this



A more sophisticated version of what Ankit says I suppose but GF below has a point





I would hope this is true of all members and that they will vote for the top 25 that they honestly believe deserve those spots.

So what is your decision.

 

[smash84]

thinking over it

Have to trudge off for juma so will take some more opinions when I return and go ahead with that

What do you guys think of Ankit's suggestion though?

 

[morgieb]

interestingly though I just received a list that does not have Bradman among the top 25 cricketers of all time

Who sent it....

and who were his other names on there?

 

[weldone]

A more sophisticated version of what Ankit says I suppose but GF below has a point

I don't think GF has a point TBH. If 2 people rate a player v highly, and the player is good enough for that, at least some of the other voters would keep him low in their pecking.

In other words, if only 2 members rate a player at no. 1 and that player doesn't receive any more votes (in the top 25) from any other members then that player must be Virat Kohli or Jeetan Patel

 

[morgieb]

Most likely if 2 people rate a player highly but no-one else does it's usually someone that's crap but gets love on this forum, IMO.

 

[Hurricane]

thinking over it

Have to trudge off for juma so will take some more opinions when I return and go ahead with that

What do you guys think of Ankit's suggestion though?

I am for the suggestion however I would make the cut off 3 votes as that is ample to stop shannanigans. Also last time I think the bottom 3 places only got 3 or 4 votes each and not 5.

btw - I have voted

 

[smash84]

ok, so the cut off is 4 votes.....we'll go ahead with 4 votes as the cut off for the shenanigans