CW Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition

[ankitj]

My mom knows Warne for sure. Always refers to him as the guy who walks and bowls, rather than runs and bowls

EDIT: and also Ambrose, as the dangerous looking, big, ruthless fast bowler.

 

[smash84]

We should really. Just get everyone who speaks to there mum to name 5 Cricketers of all time from outside their country.

Smali and the like would be very happy that my mums favourite was always Imran Khan, she just thought he was so handsome.

I think she would probably say Tendookar (I think that's how she says it) she might say Hadlee too, I'll call her tomorrow.

lol......

The international cricketers from other countries that my mom knows of are

Tendulkar.........I guess that is all

 

[NUFAN]

lol......

The international cricketers from other countries that my mom knows of are

Tendulkar.........I guess that is all

Ask her mate, I think she'll know a couple.

BTW are you doing the top 2 in the one thread or are you continuing to do them individually?

 

[BoyBrumby]

TBF, we already have that with all the 'well known' people and their XIs. At least a few people, you can tell, left out a player or two already for purposes other than the fact they rated that player lower than top 25. Not that it matters and people are welcome to vote for whomever they wish, but I am not sure if you'd get a more 'accurate' (whatever that means), if you did it that way.

Nationalistic bias is impossible to avoid, even if one tries to remain objective it's a fool's errand because one is aware of the possibility so may be subconciously overcompensating against one's fellow countrymen.

Obviously any list like this is going to be subjective anyway, but I do believe that removing any possibility of voting along national lines would be, at worst, an interesting exercise to see how the outcome differs.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nationalistic bias is impossible to avoid, even if one tries to remain objective it's a fool's errand because one is aware of the possibility so may be subconciously overcompensating against one's fellow countrymen.

Obviously any list like this is going to be subjective anyway, but I do believe that removing any possibility of voting along national lines would be, at worst, an interesting exercise to see how the outcome differs.

Which nationalities would I be allowed and not allowed to include?

 

[smash84]

Ask her mate, I think she'll know a couple.

BTW are you doing the top 2 in the one thread or are you continuing to do them individually?

hmmm.....hadn't thought of that......that is a good idea actually.......doing the top 2 in one thread.....but don't you think the top 2 deserve a separate thread of their own?

It turns out my mom knows of Botham, Gavaskar, and recognizes Warne as that "fat bowler from Australia"

 

[BoyBrumby]

Which nationalities would I be allowed and not allowed to include?

You're Australian, mate. Hate to be the one to break it to you.

Must be how oncologists feel all the time, this.

 

[NUFAN]

hmmm.....hadn't thought of that......that is a good idea actually.......doing the top 2 in one thread.....but don't you think the top 2 deserve a separate thread of their own?

It turns out my mom knows of Botham, Gavaskar, and recognizes Warne as that "fat bowler from Australia"

Haha mrssmali is gun.

Yeah they do deserve a separate thread seeing as though all of the top 10 did. I would try and post them within a minute of each other though, whenever you are ready.

 

[Prince EWS]

You're Australian, mate. Hate to be the one to break it to you.

Must be how oncologists feel all the time, this.

It's just that I've been accused of being biased for and against basically every cricketing nation at one time or another. The member "aussie" for example maintained until the day he e-died that I was in fact South African.

Interestingly enough I think I had less Australians on my list of 25 than the actual top 25 produced, and that's even despite the fact that I included Charlie Turner who didn't even make the top 50.

 

[smash84]

Haha mrssmali is gun.

Yeah they do deserve a separate thread seeing as though all of the top 10 did. I would try and post them within a minute of each other though, whenever you are ready.

Probably should post it by tomorrow night or on monday.

I think I should make a separate thread to thank you too with a picture of you and a profile like the cricketers lol....

you've done so much to help out on this.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah take your time mate no rush.

Pull your head in, I don't need a thread. Just send me some cash or something and we'll call it even.

 

[Teja.]

Ikki, I have a question, I'm sorry if you've addressed it in the past, I'll keep it as simple as possible and would like it if you do the same.

Surely the way you rate Viv and Lillee because they were so universally well-regarded while still having exceptional stats, You should have the same views on someone like Tendulkar for consistency's sake? Richie Benuad, for instance, rates him as the second best after Bradman! What is your basis for discrimination otherwise? Here I use the word discrimination not in a sense of negative emotion but rather in a sample discrimination sense.

Is it that - since you've watched Tendulkar bat you feel you don't need to give that much weightage? So do you concede that if you were born in Viv's era or Lillee's era and watched them play, despite all critical opinion, there's chance that like with Tendulkar you could not really rate them as high?

 

[Prince EWS]

Ikki, I have a question, I'm sorry if you've addressed it in the past, I'll keep it as simple as possible and would like it if you do the same.

Surely the way you rate Viv and Lillee because they were so universally well-regarded while still having exceptional stats, You should have the same views on someone like Tendulkar for consistency's sake? Richie Benuad, for instance, rates him as the second best after Bradman! What is your basis for discrimination otherwise? Here I use the word discrimination not in a sense of negative emotion but rather in a sample discrimination sense.

Is it that - since you've watched Tendulkar bat you feel you don't need to give that much weightage? So do you concede that if you were born in Viv's era or Lillee's era and watched them play, despite all critical opinion, there's chance that like with Tendulkar you could not really rate them as high?

Yep; his rationale there, as he did indeed explain before, is that he values contemporary accounts a lot higher when he hasn't seen the player in question as he has little else to make up his own mind with other than raw statistics.

Personally I look at it the other way as deduce that, given how often I differ from public opinion of players I've seen, public opinion of yesterday's cricketers was probably unlikely to align very closely with my thoughts had I been following cricket then either.

 

[smash84]

. Just send me some cash or something and we'll call it even.

NUFAN, mate, you are good, but not that good

 

[NUFAN]

NUFAN, mate, you are good, but not that good

Jaideep to agree.

 

[Prince EWS]

Jaideep to agree.

Do the recount.

 

[Prince EWS]

After the top two are posted, is there any chance of us getting a list of everyone who got voted for but didn't make the cut, with how many votes they got?

I'm curious as to who CricketWeb's nearly men were. I know I voted for at least two on my 25 who didn't make the cut at all, possibly more.

 

[smash84]

yeah....I'll post them once this is done and dusted with

 

[Teja.]

Yep; his rationale there, as he did indeed explain before, is that he values contemporary accounts a lot higher when he hasn't seen the player in question as he has little else to make up his own mind with other than raw statistics.

Personally I look at it the other way as deduce that, given how often I differ from public opinion of players I've seen, public opinion of yesterday's cricketers was probably unlikely to align very closely with my thoughts had I been following cricket then either.

My fundamental reason for not giving a great amount of contemporary accounts is that there's an irreconcilable difference between the inclusiveness of the definition for most cricketers value as criteria for greatness and what I do.

I just want to confirm with him that using his logic, he agrees that there's a chance that we would have been none too impressed with Viv too.

 

[Ikki]

This debate has gone on for far too long. Effectively, what I hear is that Ikki is not against using subjective parameters to rate a player. But he thinks his subjective parameters are more objective.

There are always subjective elements to ratings cricketers - even when looking at stats. I think one should use elements like contemporary opinion across a cross-section - which IMO is a more objective way of using subjective facets - as well as relying on hard statistics to give some sort of numerical boundary in where we rate players. And even that can be argued based on subjective assessments.

Long story short: you can't use stats without being subjective anyway and using contemporary opinion can aid the context players are judged on.

My fundamental reason for not giving a great amount of contemporary accounts is that there's an irreconcilable difference between the inclusiveness of the definition for most cricketers value as criteria for greatness and what I do.

I just want to confirm with him that using his logic, he agrees that there's a chance that we would have been none too impressed with Viv too.

I don't rule out that possibility. If you have seen the player in question and have your reasonings for judging them as lesser that seems more reasonable to me. I can appreciate such an opinion even if I don't agree with it.

Where I and PEWS differ is that I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to cricketers I haven't watched and place stock in contemporary opinion. Like him though, I often find my opinion not fitting with contemporary opinions during my watching time but I think in that instance I can genuinely argue my point and am much more certain when going against it.