CW50 2nd Edition - No 01

[Cevno]

I didn't vote so don't feel too entitled to moan. I think I agree with a lot of what has been said, but the way I really see it is that I don't think Sobers is a prank number one at all, the guy was a freak, a superb cricketer, the likes of which we will almost certainly never see again. However, I do think that Bradman is a prank number two.

Imran hard done at 3, you mean ?

 

[vic_orthdox]

A team of 11 Bradmans would lose to a team of 11 Sobers in a timeless test.

It could go for a darn long time though.

In fact, if a game is won and no-body is watching, does it happen at all? /philosopher

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

It could go for a darn long time though.

No doubt. Anyone up for the five match series?

 

[Spikey]

Never doubt the ability of a leg spinner to take a bag of wickets imo

 

[Ikki]

Really, the overreaction by some people here is ridiculous. It's CWs top 50, so CW as a whole gets to decide, not just selected members who must then submit their list to Ikki or whoever before it is approved. FFS, just use the first list if it means so much to you (generic

I sent in my list genuinely; regardless of whether it was going to affect the outcome, or wanting to affect the outcome to ensure it displayed my own preferences, out of respect to CW and Smali/Nufan who were going to go through the trouble and make the list.

To use my asking of a public list as means to distract from your or anyone else's joke list is a cop out. If my opinion matters at all you wouldn't vote that way and if it doesn't then why should you fear making it public? Obviously, by making it public you make your own opinion subject to criticism and the respect of others. That's no different to posting in a forum on a regular basis.

As much as I don't agree with some votes, and will even have trouble accepting people genuinely think a certain way about a certain player, I at least have respect for people who aren't deliberately trying to piss people off or game the system. It doesn't even bother me that much that Bradman isn't #1 as much as people intentionally gamed it so he couldn't get there.

 

[Flem274*]

And Phlegm, don't talk about why you wouldn't rate Bradman #2 behind Sobers, because your list didn't actually do that.

My original list? No, I didn't. I had Bradman at one and Grace at two (which changed after PEWS showed just how far ahead of his peers Grace was) and Sobers at six. Looking at that list again, I can honestly say right now I would rank Sobers above Bradman, because he is a better cricketer imo (though my top ten jumps around somewhat every few months).

I wouldn't blame you for not rating that honesty very highly however.

Also, the rest of you who didn't vote Bradman can come out now the floodgates have opened.

 

[Ikki]

A team of 11 Bradmans would lose to a team of 11 Sobers in a timeless test. That's my theory. I don't think it matters whether Bradman's worth 2 batsmen, 10 batsmen or 100 batsmen; he's worth zero bowlers. You need 20 wickets to win a match. That was my thinking anyway.

He's not worth 0 bowlers. Even he would get wickets. IIRC he wasn't such a bad part-timer.

I don't have the list with me right now but at least 40 I would venture

So in a 1v1 poll I'd venture to guess that Bradman would win.

 

[The Sean]

No doubt. Anyone up for the five match series?

Ha ha yep, can we sim it? Expecting to see some 5/1200 dec. style scores on both sides.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

He's not worth 0 bowlers. Even he would get wickets. IIRC he wasn't such a bad part-timer.

He's bowling to Sobers, not some rubbish batsman. Sobers will have bowling variety to offer as well. I don't see Bradman getting Sobers out 20 times.

 

[Spikey]

would you say Wally Hammond is a rubbish batsman? WOULD YOU???? CAUSE GUESS WHAT

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

would you say Wally Hammond is a rubbish batsman? WOULD YOU???? CAUSE GUESS WHAT

Get him out 20 times, did he?

STRAW MAN.

 

[Spikey]

The Home of CricketArchive

Closer look at Bradman's FC wickets list suggests he was also very much a partnership breaker, adapt at dismissing set batsman. Sobers ain't got a chance imo

 

[Spikey]

Get him out 20 times, did he?

STRAW MAN.

SORRY HOW MANY TIMES DID SOBERS GET BRADMAN - or a batsman of similar skill - OUT????

 

[Spikey]

that's it titty****er. met me outside and we'll drop the gloves

 

[Ikki]

He's bowling to Sobers, not some rubbish batsman. Sobers will have bowling variety to offer as well. I don't see Bradman getting Sobers out 20 times.

And Sobers, whose bowling himself is not too flash on the whole, is bowling to a batsman several orders of magnitude better than the ones he's faced.

I think even a club bowler will get Sobers 20 times eventually.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

And Sobers, whose bowling himself is not too flash on the whole, is bowling to a batsman several orders of magnitude better than the ones he's faced.

I think even a club bowler will get Sobers 20 times eventually.

Even a club bowler will get Bradman 20 times eventually.

Sobers' bowling's not too flash on the whole? I still think he's much more likely to average 100 with the ball bowling to Bradman than Bradman is bowling to Sobers. Sobers can bowl spin or seam well enough; there's your variety.

 

[Athlai]

#1 never got ranked first. Classic.

 

[NUFAN]

Its not actually true. Kipper voted for Sobers at position 1.

 

[smash84]

lol....sorry NUFAN I may have hidden some columns in order to tally the last rank easily

will have to look it up again.......for now I have removed Sobers highest rank

 

[Jono]

This troll would have been so much more successful if Sachin had been #1. That would have **** some peeps.

Instead, most people love Sobers. So they're like "well, I think Bradman is #1, but Sobers is a decent #1 as well. Lame troll but whatevs"